NetApp SnapCenter Reviews

We are a NetApp partner. For our systems, we are using SnapCenter only for testing purposes. For customers, we started to install when it was SnapManager, quite some years ago. We have many installations with SnapManager and some installations with SnapCenter. We're at the stage of migrating from SnapManager to SnapCenter.

Our customers primarily use SnapCenter for SQL Server and VMware.

When we're talking about databases, it gives us a fast way to make clones and test environments.

Restoring and cloning are easy to do.

I'm waiting for SnapCenter for hybrid solutions. Right now, we only have SnapManager for hybrid. I need agents for that. People are looking to install SnapCenter in a SQL environment, but where they're running SQL on Hyper-V and using virtual files. Currently, we don't have support for hybrid. We can't do that.

People are also asking about SnapCenter for SharePoint. There was a SnapManager, but SnapManager is being brought to an end and now there is nothing for SharePoint. We don't have the ability to do snapshots for SharePoint.

Now, the stability is good. The first release was not very stable, but now it's okay.

I haven't had any issue with scalability. In our country and for our customers, it's okay. We haven't used it in the cloud yet. I think it's quite good.

Technical support is good, but it just depends on how difficult the case is. 

I have problems with the documentation, for connecting new shelves to the old FAS models. The case is marked "resolved," but I haven't received the documentation.

We used SnapManager. We switched because SnapCenter provides centralized management. It's also a newer product and it supports new databases and operating systems.

I think the initial setup is straightforward, but it depends on your skills. For us, it's straightforward.

The installation time depends on how many agents I need for the number of databases there are or how many systems. But in general, the initial configuration takes something like two hours.

We also provide SnapVault and Veeam. I'm a NetApp specialist, I don't install these other products. We have another person who does.

Our customers generally have one or two users using SnapCenter. They aren't very big companies which have a dedicated SQL or& Oracle or VMware administrator. Most of the users are DB admins and system administrators. For deployment and maintenance, two is a good number, so that there is some redundancy. But one person is enough to install it and maintain it.

I would rate SnapCenter at eight out of ten, because it doesn't have functionality for Hyper-V, etc. I need more agents and support for more systems.

We're using it for Oracle and SQL, and we use it for backups and cloning.

The backup features are the most valuable because they allow the DBAs to replace SnapManager for Oracle (SMO), which is going away, and to do cloning as well.

We can also clone to different servers and have the actual backup clone mounted on different servers. And we can split easily too.

It hasn't improved our organization because we're going through some kinks with the product as of right now. We've had several tickets open, but because it's replacing SMO we have to get used to using it now.

As far as ease of use, the DBAs are comparing it to SMO but it doesn't have a lot of the functionalities that SMO has.

My major issue is when I upgrade. I have to touch every last client that I have in SnapCenter, and right now I have 60. I have to touch all of them. They said that in another release that will get better, but right now it's not better and I've had to do this three times. That's my biggest headache, having to touch each client to upgrade this product, via GUI or manually.

It's a good product. There should have been more thought put into it before it went live, because when the DBAs are so used to using SMO, it's obvious they're going to compare the two. If they're used to a function that SnapCenter doesn't have, that's an issue. Slowly but surely, it's getting the functions, but when it was presented to us we understood that it would just replace SMO as is, that we'd be able to do everything we needed to do. But we couldn't.

So far, technical support has been decent, it's been good.

Every time we bring up an issue that we're having, they say we have to upgrade to another version, but the version's not quite out. I think they're writing solutions to some of our kinks into the product, which is good, but I wish that they would just tell us that.

We switched from SMO because it was going to be discontinued. Going forward, we can't install it on our production servers anymore. That's why we went to SnapCenter. SMO is not going to be supported as of spring 2019.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was just plug-and-play on the Windows Server, get the firewall ports open that are needed, and push to the clients. It is still a manual process, but that piece, the initial install, is easy. The upgrades are not.

The deployment took no more than an hour, but I did it on my own. If I had had initial support it probably would have been less. The reason it took so long is that I didn't have the right firewall ports open. It was clearly there for me but I missed something. So it took about an hour to get the ports opened.

I had everything that I needed. I just took it on by myself, and it was the first time doing it, and it was the first release of SnapCenter. It was 3.0. We don't have direct NetApp support. We have Datalink support. Datalink is our VAR but they didn't know too much about SnapCenter. They had to promote my ticket to NetApp and go from there. Once my question was answered - "Oh, you left out this firewall port" - then it was all good.

Our implementation strategy was to get all of our Prod servers into SnapCenter and that was accomplished in six months.

It's a site license, so it comes with what we have. We have over 400 terabytes of NetApp disk, and it comes with it. So the return on investment is null and void. Since we have it, we're using it.

It does the cloning piece, which it's supposed to do. But we figured that out when 4.0 came out. When we first went to it, it would not do that in 3.0. We're getting a return on investment because it basically comes with what we have.

We have a site license, so it comes with the product.

We didn't evaluate other vendors. All our databases are on NetApp storage, so we wanted to stick with NetApp.

Test out every function that you think you'll need before you implement it in your
production environment.

My role is just to do the configurations. The DBAs actually use the product because it's more of a set it and forget it. I configure it on the server then they get to use it. We have only SQL DBAs and Oracle DBAs using it, a total of about eight people. For deployment we just need the storage team which consists of two people.

If it botches, we will move more into Commvault, because we do have Commvault for backups. But with Commvault backups, it would be the storage team in control of their clones and restores, and we don't want that. So we're going to push forward with SnapCenter because, for the most part, it does what it's supposed to do.

I would rate SnapCenter a seven out of ten, only because of the kinks that we have to keep going through to get what we need. They end up fixing it in a different version, but I wish it was just ready for us on implementation, and then the DBAs would be off my back.

It's used as a backup and recovery software. Some of our clients are using the solution for private cloud primary backup.

It has very fast backup and can handle a huge amount of data. It also enables fast recovery. 

1. It would be a good idea to add date support and improve on resource management, not the backup itself, but in the manageability. Groups might be helpful for each site or data center so that we know a given data center has these resources while another data center has those resources. It's not always easy to group hosts by type.
2. A host is trying to set up a connection with every SVM configured on SnapCenter Server. This is not good, especially if, like in our environment, each SVM is configured for particular department and is beyond a firewall. As far as I know developers are aware of this issue.
3. It would be nice to have native plugins not only for Oracle and MS SQL. Community plugins can cover your needs, but I'd like to have more functionality.
4. I would like to have more friendly logging. Sometimes this could save time for our team and allow us not to create new case in support.
   

If nothing changes it works fine. But we faced some issues twice after we upgraded to next SnapCenter release. One time Vmware was affected and one time it was Oracle on Linux. Before update procedure, you should test any new release properly in a test environment!

It can cover much more than we have now. Scalability is a strong point. We are able to monitor it through a dashboard and reports.

We have used tech support and it has helped us in every case. It's very good.

We did have a previous solution. We switched to this one because it allows us to have a better RTO/RPO and the solution is included in our bundle.

The install is very simple. I just need to know the requirements and then I can install it. The number of staff required for deployment and maintenance of the solution depends on the organization. 

We evaluated SnapCenter vs NetBackup and SnapCenter vs Veeam.

SnapCenter is really good for VMware, it's really nice. It's also very good for SQL and Oracle. But you need to test it properly each time because there are times you will need to reconfigure your infrastructure.

We have plans to increase usage of this product. It currently covers about half of our infrastructure.

I would rate SnapCenter at seven out of ten. It's very good, allowing us to do fast backup and recovery, but like every product, it has its flaws, limitations and it has a room for improvement. It may not be useful for certain companies. But anyway, when I look at other backup solutions, I have not yet seen a product that is a ten out of ten.

It is used for VMware and Microsoft SQL databases. We use it for ordinary backups. Nothing special.

I like the instant backups and recovery feature that SnapCenter provides within NetApp storage systems. That's mostly why I'm using it.

I would like to see replication support between systems. Right now, it's kind of limited.
We manage them separately from the storage system interface, not from SnapCenter. It would be nice if it was integrated into SnapCenter.

I would rate the stability at four out of five because it's a complicated product. In terms of integrating with systems and software, sometimes you need to watch your software versions and the changing environment. But that is its design, so there is nothing you can do about it.

It's stable. I haven't had any stability issues with it.

SnapCenter handles scaling very well. In my opinion, it's for small or medium businesses but not for enterprise. It has great value because it's cheap and everything is bundled with the NetApp system, so it's best for small customers. Big enterprises usually use complete backup systems. There's no way you can it can propose SnapCenter as the primary backup system in an enterprise, in my experience. There is nothing wrong with the software, it's just that big enterprises have serious backup systems.

We use different backup solutions for systems that SnapCenter doesn't support. We use Commvault. We started using SnapCenter this year. We had a few new NetApp systems and it was cheaper to use SnapCenter than Commvault because it's included and bundled with the system. It's better to use SnapCenter than to pay for Commvault. It's better value.

The initial setup is pretty easy. It's very good. The whole process of implementation is pretty easy and straightforward. There's nothing to improve here.

Usually, it takes less than one hour to deploy it and get it operational. Our implementation strategy is to check the whole compatibility matrix. That makes it go easily. Deployment generally requires one or two storage engineers, as well as a DB or VMware admin. Four people is enough.

It ordinarily works without any maintenance needed, but to monitor all the backup stuff might take half an FTE.

We see a financial value with SnapCenter because we don't have to license Commvault, which is pretty expensive.

NetApp has great licensing models. It has two bundles: You can buy Premium or SnapCenter, and that's a great thing. You have all the replications included but, as I mentioned before, there should be some improvements in the management the replication for SnapCenter.

We have not looked at other systems. We have a primary backup system and SnapCenter for particular systems, and that satisfies our requirements.

Check the compatibility of all components before, although it's pretty common. After you check the compatibility, then deploy SnapCenter and the plug-ins. Don't try to implement and then troubleshoot. It makes things more complex.

Backup and recovery software solutions are very important for every company. SnapCenter is pretty cheap, and that's important as well. Sometimes, customers don't want to pay a lot for backup solutions. That is why SnapCenter is good.

We do implementations from time to time, where customers have no backup solutions at all. It's better to have something that is actually free rather than nothing. Case by case, if we have no backup system, we use SnapCenter, but I don't think the number of our installations will grow significantly.

I would rate SnapCenter at seven out of ten because of the lack of replication management, which is very important.

We use it for Oracle, on the client side.

In our company, we are mostly using SnapCenter software in our test environment. There are many customers using NetApp products, but most of them don't use SnapCenter software in their production environment. So we do not have a lot of experience with it in production systems. We are testing it in our data core environment and our test environment. We check the software's features and new features, and sometimes we do troubleshooting as well.

We test VMware Snapshot, Hyper-V Snapshot, database Snapshots, for example, MS SQL and Oracle.

It allows us to easily take a Snapshot and use it with any backup tools.

We can also take Snapshots on the application side. If we want to restore an SAP or an Oracle machine, a normal Snapshot won't do it, but we can do so with SnapCenter.

We can back up according to application types and not bind. All the features are good for NetApp storage. SnapCenter is the top application. It makes it very easy to work with backup tools.

The replication feature needs improvement in future releases.

SnapCenter is stable.

We haven't had to use technical support for SnapCenter yet.

We were using NetApp's previous software, SnapManager: SnapManager Exchange, SnapManager SQL, SnapManager for Hyper-V, and SnapManager for VMware, etc. SnapCenter is the software which collected all the different kinds of SnapManagers into one bundle. That's why we started using it.

The initial setup is not complex. It's easy, but we have to know which version is used on the customer's side. For example, we have to know which version of ESX they are using and whether the Oracle or SAP machine is a virtual or physical machine. If we make a mistake at setup time it will be a problem for an application or Snapshot.

Deployment takes one hour. We set up step-by-step.

There are two kinds of licenses: a controller license, which is the SnapCenter Standard Capacity license, as well as the SnapCenter Advanced Capacity license.

We are using Commvault Backup software in our environment. Commvault can also manage Snapshots of NetApp, but SnapCenter is very easy for us.

It's really useful if you are using NetApp storage. If you have NetApp storage in your environment and want to take a Snapshot, I recommend purchasing this software.

We have five users of it in our organization. In most environments, one person is enough to manage the software.

I would rate it at eight out of ten. It's useful. If you don't have a backup application, you can use SnapCenter.

We primarily use the solution for snapshots and for backups.

We have found that the snapshotting mechanism is better than VMware.

The solution is stable.

The initial setup isn't extremely difficult.

Technical support has been very helpful when we have issues.

The solution is free to use for our company.

The usability of the solution could be much better. It's something the solution could improve upon.

The UI, the User Interface, needs to be improved. It's not as clean or modern as it could be.

Some of the granularity isn't there when you compare it to solutions like Rubrik, which are much slicker.

I've only been working with the solution for a couple of months. It hasn't been that long.

The solution is very stable. We haven't really experienced any bugs or glitches. I can't recall the product crashing or freezing. The reliability is pretty good in terms of performance.

We have not yet tested the scalability. I cannot speak to how easy it is to do so.

Currently, I am the only person in the company that is using the product.

We have dealt with technical support in the past. We've found them to be very, very good. They are helpful and responsive, They are knowledgeable. We are very satisfied with the level of service they provide to us when required.

We had previously used solutions VMware. However, we found that sometimes of the answers were too long when you use VMware snapshots. Therefore, we decided to switch to a different product altogether.

The initial setup is neither straightforward nor complex. It was somewhere in between. It has a moderate amount of complexity.

We use the solution for free. The price couldn't be any lower for us. We have no complaints in that regard.

I've looked at Rubrik in the past. I find it to be much slicker in its capabilities. It offers much more granularity.

We are using the latest version of the solution. I cannot speak to the actual version number.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

If new users or companies are considering the solution, I would advise that they make sure they read the documentation in full. It's the best advice I can offer a new user.

We have a handful of customers constantly using it, mostly for SQL databases, while one of them uses it for VMware.

From the feedback I've heard from clients, they do experience time savings with this solution. It's more efficient than before. SQL backup is just a pain, but with this solution, it seems to be much better. And the consolidated view is a good tool for them on a daily basis.

The backup feature is the most valuable, of course.

Moreover, what is very handy for our clients is the consolidated view. They have a dashboard with everything, through a single pane of glass. This is what they really need because, within seconds, they can have a good overview and see if there are any errors or any issues.

What I did witness lately are issues with some Microsoft KBs, the updates. But it happened only once, and not on a major platform, it was on a small one. We're doing a major one for a customer in Paris with many SQL servers and, to date, everything is going well.

I have not yet had experience with version 4.0 - that is the latest one - but I have gone through the release notes and it seems to have some improvements.

It's quite stable, but sometimes the stability seems to be endangered by the ecosystem itself and especially the OS updates. This is what we did experience from our side. But the demand for this piece of software is pretty slim among our customers. We have five or six customers using it. Since we support more than 400 customers, this is a pretty rare solution in our scope. But still, the stability seems to be fair.

We've got customers with just one or two servers, and we've got customers with a lot of servers. But NetApp is something that is quite monolithic. You need the same base installed for or one server or ten, 20, or 50 servers. The prerequisites are really even, because you cannot tune the deployment for a small environment or a big one. There is only one flavor.

I use their tech support on a daily basis. Lately, we have experienced many changes. In the past, we were able to directly access level two but that's over. Nowadays, we always need to go through level one. For us, it's a pain and a waste of time because NetApp wants us to be highly certified. We've got here a big team that is very knowledgeable about NetApp solutions, meaning the whole portfolio. At the end of the day, it's somewhat frustrating for us because when we do engage NetApp, it is because we cannot be completely autonomous. But by that point, we have already taken many troubleshooting steps. Especially for the end customers, when we don't have a solution and we have to open a case with NetApp support, often they get the feeling it's something of a "rerun," because most of the time they need to do the same steps that we already did ourselves.

We are trying to hide that process and make it seamless, but sometimes it does end up with a big waste of time and it's a bit frustrating. I have spoken about these kinds of concerns many times already with the department managers.

They moved all the service providers to this new scheme. It was a corporate decision and we just have to comply. Every authorized service partner, nowadays, is forced to go through level one.

I'm not involved in the initial installation but I do support the solution and sometimes do upgrades. In my opinion, the upgrade I did went well, but it's been a while. It was from version 2.0 to 3.0. At that time, it ran fine and was better than expected. It was seamless.

The upgrade took a little more than an hour. We did a first station, just to ensure that all the prerequisites were met up front, to set it up in the best way. The customers always want the sensitive stuff to be done outside of business hours.

My advice is the same for all of the offsite products made by NetApp. You need to look carefully at the prerequisites to avoid any bad surprises afterward. But if you follow the rules, it should go easily.

The solution is mostly is used by backup administrators and sometimes DBAs. From my side it's really hard to tell who is using it because I am always in touch with the same one or two people at every company, because these are the people who are opening the tickets.

I would rate this solution at seven out of ten. It's more than "fair," but it's not perfect. But I will be pleased to have a look at version 4.0 to see what the improvements are.

We use it in our managed services for customers. We back up customer data from systems that we manage for them.

Because of the Role-Based Access Control, customers don't have to call our managed services representatives to do a restore, they can do it themselves. It's faster, easier, and more convenient.

The most valuable feature is the RBAC, the Role-Based Access Control. In our managed services, we can have different layers of security. Our customers can see their backups and some customers can do their own restores. But they are not able to mess up their schedules or data from other customers.

The reporting could be better. It's good, but reporting of the jobs could be better.

The stability has been good.

We haven't found any problems running multiple customers on it with large environments, so it scales well.

Tech support is good, in general: good to very good.

We used Virtual Storage Console from NetApp before and we used a third-party enterprise backup solution. We switched to SnapCenter because of ease of use and cost.

The initial setup is very easy. It usually takes about a day.

We have a template for the design of the servers and then there's a little bit of customer-specific customization going on, but only a little: The scheduling is customer-specific.

We only need one person, an engineer, for deployment and maintenance of SnapCenter.

Pricing is very good because if you already have NetApp controllers, then it's included. There's no added cost for SnapCenter. 

Do a PoC to see if it's a viable product for you.

In our company, we have about 20 users of SnapCenter. They are managed services backup administrators. Our management also uses the reporting. On the customer side, there are also have the people responsible for the virtual environment and the application owners. Those are the types of people that are using the product.