NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

IO Performance.

We have moved GPFS's metadata to the SSD disks, the incremental backup is 6-8 times faster (we have over 120,000,000 files and backup takes "only" 30 hours now).

Our next step is to migrate TSM database to SSD array and we hope that allows us to once again reduce backup time.

IO intensive tasks.

12 months

No

Yes

I/O performance is good enough, but to achieve big capacity TB/s you need better controllers and many more SSD drives (we have over 1 PB of storage and only 15 TB of SSD disks).

Good.

Good.

We needed much more I/O, and the size and the GB/s performance was enough.

It wasn't complex.

We implemented it in-house.

We are a non-profit organisation, and we must deliver the best performance solution for our users.

The power consumption is very low, and the size is small (2U) and these are the only costs at this time.

We knew that we needed SSD array.

Buy as much support as you can afford.

The tool's most valuable feature is SVM. I also like the speed and response of the filers. 

We should be able to manage NetApp AFF as per the desired usage and needs. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

NetApp AFF is stable. 

NetApp AFF's support is excellent. 

Positive

We have seen ROI with the product's use. 

NetApp AFF has helped us unify and manage the shares under one domain. 

The product has helped to reduce operational latency. 

The tool has helped us optimize costs with its deduplication, data efficiency, and compression features. 

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution for IBM and SQL workloads. 

The tool's most valuable feature is efficiency. 

The Bezels need improvement. 

I have been using the product for six years. 

NetApp AFF's stability, reliability, availability, and performance are top-notch. 

The solution is scalable. 

NetApp AFF's support is good. 

Positive

The tool's deployment is easy. 

I am comfortable with the pricing, which is fair compared to others. 

We wanted to enhance performance with the solution's implementation. 

We were able to simplify the infrastructure and get high performance for our business. It has reduced operational latency. 

We have been able to optimize costs by 40 percent. 

NetApp AFF has helped us with power saving by reducing the footprint of the data center. 

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of the solution is data protection and snapshot technology for backup. 

NetApp AFF needs to focus more on block storage. It has to focus on high-end, performance-driven applications. 

I have been working with the solution for more than five years. 

NetApp AFF is scalable. 

NetApp AFF has good technical support. 

Positive

We chose NetApp AFF because it is flexible and reliable. It offers a unified storage system. 

NetApp AFF's deployment is straightforward. You can deploy it within half a day. 

NetApp AFF's pricing is competitive. It is not expensive or cheap. The tool's pricing is based on configurations and can cost around 150-160 dollars for 70 TB of storage. 

We recommend the solution to small, mid, and enterprise companies. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use both NetApp's FAS and AFF solutions. It's a hybrid that we use for FileMaker. 

Our use case is to implement it for our clients.

NetApp enables us to consolidate file and block storage into one device instead of using separate devices. Adopting one device for all those services saves power in the data center while simplifying management because you don't need to manage two different systems. We save power costs at the rack site. 

One technology we hope to acquire is ransomware detection. We have block, file, and object storage, but we don't have ransomware protection. We need a second off-site disaster recovery location. 

I work on the infrastructure engineering side. I usually get to install NetApp appliances, and I like how easy the installation is. It seems to be easier than other technologies that we use. 

NetApp could offer more training for new learners because it's a relatively new product portfolio to me. 

We have used HPE and Dell EMC. Previously, we used Dell ECS for object storage and Dell PowerStore for block storage. NetApp enabled us to unify our storage services.

I rate NetApp solutions eight out of 10.