NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

We are mostly using it for ESX, i.e., a mix of both CIFS and NFS shares, and NAS purposes. 

We have a team of four core NetApp trained people from the storage team who are managing NetApp. Two of them are in the learning stage, and I am one of them. 

Performance-wise, NetApp is very good. 

The NetApp FlexVol feature is helpful because we can copy large amounts of data in minutes as well as include data quickly. That is definitely one of its plus points as well as it being all-flash. 

It simplifies data management for NAS environments with its ease of management, ease of share creation, and Active IQ feature. These features are good overall. It helps us manage data quickly and sufficiently. Also, compression features, like dedupe, give us a good ratio.

We are using ONTAP 9, which has simplified our operations.

There is room for improvement in terms of support. I have noticed that if I sometimes call their customer care for a particular issue, they will give me another number and ask me to call that other team. It would be better if they could do a warm transfer. That would save customers time from calling all the numbers again and speaking to another team. 

I have been using NetApp AFF for almost two years.

Stability has been pretty good.

There has been a lot of improvement on drive failures after the patch. Now, drive failures are negligible, which is a plus point. 

Previously, there were SAP instances where we used to have a lot of issues, such as performance issues, P1, etc. However, with NetApp, those have been almost negligible.

We can extend the solution, per our wishes, which is also good. The environment for this solution is about eight to 10 petabytes. 

The solution has been widely accepted by our management. 

I would rate their technical support as nine out of 10. Sometimes, it depends on to whom I am speaking. However, most of the time, technical support has been very good, apart from one or two negligible instances.

Positive

We were using a different vendor for virtualization, then we switched to NetApp. The feedback from the VMware team is that things have improved. 

We were using Oracle Veritas previously. Sometimes, their technical support was not that user-friendly. While the hardware was good, it needs to be good going end-to-end. So, if we had an issue, then they were not as helpful, technical support-wise, as we have seen from NetApp. Apart from that, the features that NetApp provides overall are better than what Oracle used to provide.

I have worked on HPE products, but that has primarily been on 3PAR, which is mostly for SAN protocols.

I was not a part of the initial setup.

The data rate is faster because there are no spindles on it.

We are using Commvault for backup purposes.

If you are looking for long-term stability, performance improvement, and data compression, NetApp is the answer.

There are a few sites where our other vendors' contracts are running out. Most of those are getting replaced with NetApp. That is definitely in the pipeline.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10. I am holding back one point for future improvements.

I use AFF to boost performance for tasks like general workloads, virtualized workloads, and high-performance databases. It helps me manage costs while delivering better results in these areas. 

Additionally, AFF has significantly simplified my infrastructure while maintaining high performance. It simplifies the infrastructure by allowing us to easily migrate and adjust workloads using SnapMirror based on our environment's needs. 

With multiple clusters, it offers the flexibility to distribute workloads effectively and adapt to changing demands. AFF has also reduced support issues. Customers usually only complain about performance when it's a real problem, but with AFF's flash storage, we have had fewer complaints. When issues do come up, they are often related to other parts like the network, not the storage itself, which makes troubleshooting easier. 

NetApp AFF's flash technology offers great performance. This feature has been my go-to for managing data and ensuring speed and reliability.

In terms of improvement, the support could be a little better but it has improved a lot.

I have been using NetApp for thirteen years.

NetApp AFF is very stable. I would give it a ten out of ten for stability.

The support has been good, with responsive assistance, especially at higher tiers. However, there were some language and repetitive questions issues with the first-line support, but it improved as it escalated to higher levels. Having account managers has been beneficial.

The initial setup was easy, similar to other NetApp FAS installations.

The price is a bit high, but it is worth it because we have fewer performance issues to deal with and it saves us time. Using multiple NetApp clusters also helps us move workloads as needed, which cuts costs.

Overall, I would rate NetApp AFF as a nine out of ten.

We are using NetApp AFF primarily for file servers.

NetApp AFF has helped our organization because they're reliable, and the file shares are available to everyone all the time.

The most valuable feature of NetApp AFF is the reputation of the company.

NetApp AFF could improve SAN storage because it feels as if it was not put together at the beginning, it functions as an afterthought. Additionally, the cloud features could be more mature.

I have used NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) within the past 12 months.

I rate the stability of NetApp AFF an eight out of ten.

We have plans to increase our usage of the solution in the future.

I rate the scalability of NetApp AFF a seven out of ten.

I rate the support of NetApp AFF a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of NetApp AFF is straightforward.

NetApp AFF is a good investment, but it is expensive.

NetApp AFF is an expensive solution.

I would recommend this solution for NAS but not for SAN.

I rate NetApp AFF a seven out of ten.

It is used for separating locations from a network cluster and also to store the data and create a backup on another location for bigger companies.

NetApp is like a one-point central management. For example, one can put everything on the right version and control the whole environment from one software solution. It's easy to have an insight into monitoring and stuff. The solution is easy to manage.

The user interface should be more user-friendly and configuration could be easier.

I have been using NetApp AFF for two years.

It is a fairly stable solution. There is rarely a problem and everything runs fine.

It is a fairly scalable solution, though some things are more easily scalable than others but the possibilities are endless. Presently, sixty customers are working on the solution.

The customer support team of NetApp is good.

The initial setup is not very simple. As I always use the CLI for configuration, it is easy. But the nodes' and cluster configuration can also be done with GUI.

The solution is deployed by connecting everything in different locations and then implementing the solution that will be sold to customers. The deployment is done by three engineers, which include two senior engineers and myself.

The customers need to pay for the license.

I would recommend NetApp to people with a budget and looking for a simple solution for a small environment. But for complex environments, NetApp can be an overkill.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

This is a storage solution. 

I like that you can switch protocols and features on and off, depending on how I architect my domain. From the business side of things, it supports file formatting, the main protocols, and the hot swapping of disks and features. 

This is an expensive solution that could be cheaper.

I've been using this product for several years. 

The stability is good. 

If it's a data center enterprise-fed product, it is scalable. Some of the base models are not scalable, but these products are generally scalable.

Deployment time depends on the size of the organization. If you have engineers, the implementation can be done in-house. 

It's important to ensure that your use cases are suitable for the product prior to investing in the purchase of it. I recommend this solution and rate it eight out of 10. 

We host data for our users via CIFS and NFS protocols.

This is a physical appliance.

We found its Snapshots to be quite valuable. They allow us to restore data, in a timely fashion, that has accidentally been overwritten, modified, or deleted. That is the biggest feature. 

In terms of the footprint, it is far more efficient. It has smaller, higher-capacity drives than our older unit. In terms of space, power, and cooling, it has simplified things.

The newest version of ONTAP has a bit of a learning curve because you need to learn where things are to find them. It is not impossible, but when you are accustomed to the older version of ONTAP, it just takes a bit getting used to it, but it is about the same as before.

The front-end of ONTAP and its web UI could be improved. It has been a little while since I interacted with the interface, but my recollection is that because of the learning curve and things moving around, it is less intuitive than the previous version. 

We purchased it over a year ago. However, we really started using it several months ago. We had originally set it up in our old data center, then we decided to move it to our new data center before using it in production. It has been up and running for six or seven months.

So far, stability has been good. We haven't seen any problems. It has been just a few months, but even going back to the previous model of the NetApp NAS that we've had, I can't fault the stability. It has been extremely stable.

Because of the small footprint, the device allows for easier scalability in terms of rack space. Our previous solution used up almost an entire cabinet in our data center, which makes scaling a bit challenging because you need to find another cabinet, then cable across cabinets. This device is a lot easier because of its small footprint.

We have about four rack units in total. At this point, I don't anticipate any physical expansion. If we are going to expand, it will probably be to the cloud for a variety of reasons.

Our experience with NetApp's support has been superb. They are very proactive. I have nothing but good things to say about NetApp as well as our reseller that we work through, Indocurrent. The combination of Indocurrent and NetApp has led to a fantastic experience for us over the past year. I hope that doesn't change, and it hasn't changed since we went live with AFF.

I would rate NetApp's support as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We have seen performance improvements between AFF and our older NetApp, which was several years old.

We moved to the AFF model for performance, going from just spinning hard desks to all-flash. Also, its deduplication rate is another positive that we have seen. We have been able to extend it further than its physical capacity by utilizing the deduplication that the platform offers.

We don't have a SAN environment. We are just using it as a NAS. It is not any more or less complicated than our environment was before. We are still utilizing the same things, like export policies, quotas, qtrees, etc. that we were using with our older platform. It is about the same as it was before. 

The deployment was done over the course of a couple of months. This was mostly scheduling time on our end to work with the integrator. We then had to schedule time to go prep it to be moved from Manhattan to New Jersey, before moving it, setting it up, and getting things back online. So, it took a couple of months to get set up.

For customers who had it moved or shipped directly to the device's final destination, it shouldn't take that long to set it up if you have either a quality integrator or a substantial amount of experience with NetApp. 

Because I worked with our reseller, Indocurrent, we had someone who had a substantial amount of experience with NetApp. I wasn't as hands-on in terms of deploying it, but I was there with him as he deployed it. I watched him, observed him, and learned from him. Learning from that person was actually helpful. 

It was very straightforward working with the reseller. They have always been responsive to us. I have nothing but good things to say about our reseller/integrator. I would recommend Indocurrent as a reseller.

The amount of time that our IT support spends on it is minimal. Therefore, any cost savings would be negligible.

I looked at other vendors for other potential projects and thought NetApp's pricing was very competitive.

We are in the process of procuring the necessary license to do SnapMirror and back that data up to the cloud via AWS. Hopefully, we will be using that shortly.

We have had such a good experience with NetApp that our next logical step up from our previous device was just another NetApp.

NetApp has been reliable for us. Their technologies have been rock-solid. That is why we felt comfortable going from their older model to their newer model, AFF, rather than looking for a new vendor.

It is a good platform. If you don't have a lot of in-house experience setting things up physically, I recommend working with a good reseller. Find a good reseller whom you trust that has experienced staff and work hand-in-hand with them. You learn as you go, then once the device has been deployed, you can manage it for yourself.

Take advantage of NetApp's knowledge base and support site. It has a lot of very good documentation and how-to guides that explain how to accomplish what you want to accomplish. 

Get comfortable with the ONTAP command line because it is a very powerful tool that would allow you a lot of flexibility in terms of accomplishing many tasks. Where you might need multiple clicks and screens in the ONTAP web version, the command line allows you to do things with a relatively simple command.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10.

We use it mostly for user file data. We are also providing data stores for our VMware platform.

It helps simplify data management with unified data services across SAN and NAS environments. It has also simplified our infrastructure, while still giving us high performance for business-critical applications, and that was mostly due to the arrival of cluster ONTAP. Things really got a lot easier with that.

It also helps to accelerate databases in our environment. First of all, there is the reliability of things staying online and the small response time as well, from the MetroCluster, for all of the data that we're serving; and the applications are talking to the MetroCluster. It provides a very fast response time.

The typical snapshots are one of the benefits. Also, in addition to the NetApp MetroCluster, we also have two eight-node HA clusters. And the solution makes our work easier.

NetApp AFF has also helped to reduce support issues such as performance tuning and troubleshooting, and that's true even though we are quite self-sufficient in our knowledge of our clusters and of NetApp in general.

There is room for improvement with the user interface. There are a few things that cannot be done in the GUI. We do a lot of things through the CLI, but that's grown out of a lack of ability to do them in the GUI. An example is QTrees. You can manage them within the GUI, but the GUI is missing a few options. Also, the graphical design of the GUI for that part doesn't fit the windows on your screen.

I have been using NetApp AFF for about eight years.

The reliability is one of the most important elements. Since we went to cluster ONTAP, we have really found it to be reliable. Previously, we were running NetApp with a lot of 7-Mode systems. The transition to cluster ONTAP wasn't easy, but in the end, it's way more reliable. What we love about the MetroCluster is that we do not have to worry about data being on one site. The reliability is one of its best features.

The only issue we had, once, was when we moved to another data center, but that was not NetApp's fault.

Scalability of the solution is great, but expensive.

We always get what we need from their technical support, but what I find annoying is that you always have to go through all the various levels of support. That has definitely improved, but you always have to go through the front end, explaining what your environment looks like and what the impact of the issue is. But that's the only complaint I have about the support.

It would help if they had a customer profile and could look it up and. When I create a case, I try to put in as much information as I can, but it's not always read. I get a standard email back from NetApp that says, "What does your environment look like?" even when I have put all of the information in the case, upfront.

Positive

We used two separate 7-Mode clusters and we SnapMirrored the data to the other side. We moved to NetApp AFF because of the speed and because solid-state disks were the new technology at the time.

The initial setup and deployment of NetApp AFF is pretty straightforward. A lot of terms that were used in 7-Mode became easier and were more clearly stated when we transitioned to cluster ONTAP.

Our transition lasted a year or so. We had a lot of data to move. We used the 7-Mode transition tool. My entire team of six people was involved.

The pricing is pretty reasonable for what we get. But if you have to buy any more disk space, it can be quite expensive. We had some internal discussions with people who wanted to store a lot of graphical data and we gave them the pricing for that and they were really horrified about the pricing of a single shelf.

We did not look at any other vendors.

With the all-new cloud availability, it's really important to think about the necessity of having your data doubled up over two data centers. With the cloud becoming more pervasive, the entire government is thinking of dropping physical data centers and going to managed, private cloud. My advice would be to think through whether you really need the functionalities of a MetroCluster. I like them a lot, but cost-wise, the cloud could be a great option.

The main purpose of the AFF is to work with applications that require high-intensity I/O operations. For example, we run some open-source DBs, as well as Oracle, that require high-intensity I/O. We also have a high-performance computing setup.

We have two locations. In the first location, we have an AFF cluster. In the second location, we have an AFF cluster that works in combination with ASAs.

Our environment is primarily made up of open-source applications. 

We are not using the NetApp cloud backup services. Instead, we have a storage solution on the back end and AFF on the front end. In this setup, we have high I/O with a low storage expenditure.

Our company is mainly concerned with software development and we have VMs as part of our infrastructure. We have a large number of VMs and they require a large data capacity, although we don't know which ones require high-intensity input and output. The reason for this is that some scenarios demand a high level of I/O, whereas, with others, the demand is low. We have AFFs set up at the front end, and at the backend, we have ECD boxes, which are the storage grid.

We treat the system as a fabric pool setup. When a high level of I/O is required, the data will be stored on NetApp AFF at the front end. We created a policy so that pooled data will move automatically to the lower-end capacity units, which are configured from the storage unit.

NetApp helps to accelerate some of the demanding enterprise applications that we have, in particular, our database applications. 

NetApp AFF has helped to simplify our infrastructure while still getting a very high performance. Prior to setting up AFFs, we had latency issues. Now, things are more balanced, including the volumes that are on SAS or SATA.

Using NetApp AFF has helped to reduce support issues, including performance-tuning. About a year and a half ago, we were experiencing some performance issues. Lately, this has not been the case, although occasionally, we still have problems. We are exploring whether it is the server hardware or an issue with VMware and drivers.

The ONTAP operating system has made things somewhat simpler, although we don't use it very much. I normally work on the CLI so for me, it is not a big difference. That said, as features are released with the latest versions, I review them to stay updated.

We also use NetApp's StorageGRID and the combination of it with AFF has reduced our overall cost while increasing performance. We see benefits on both sides. 

The most valuable feature is its ability to handle high-intensity read and write operations. It works very well in terms of this.

We recently started using the volume encryption feature, which is helpful because there are some federal projects that require data at rest to be encrypted.

SnapMirror is another feature that we use, but we don't have MetroCluster set up. SnapMirror is used for replication across multiple geographical data centers. In these locations, we have products and we are exploring how to minimize the bandwidth while improving DR capabilities. With respect to the DR, we don't use the AFF in secondary nodes.

In some situations, we would like to have an additional storage shelf but do not want to use an SSD. Unfortunately, AFF won't work in conjunction with SATA. Having these together might give some benefit in terms of capacity.

We would like to have a feature that automatically moves volumes between aggregates, based on the performance. We normally need to do this manually.

In some cases, we would like to have the ability to expand our units to handle two additional target ports. As of now, we are using four or eight target ports, which come with the A300 model. There are situations where we need to extend this but we have limited slots available. 

We have been using NetApp AFF for the past six years.

The stability of this solution is fine.

The scalability is seamless. Without any downtime, we can upgrade and scale-up.

As of now, we have a 40TB SSD front-end fabric pool capacity. At the back end, we have a two-petabyte storage grid. We are not experiencing any performance-related issues, although we have encountered a few time sync-related problems.

I have also worked on an IBM DS8000 series and some similar products from EMC.

IBM had released the 8700 with the AFF configuration. However, I was with another company at the time. The majority of my experience is with NetApp using the CLI, but with the IBM product, I was using the GUI. I prefer the CLI in both systems.

With respect to the pros and cons between the vendors, it is difficult for me to judge. Each filesystem has benefits with respect to the vendor and the technology that they use.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is not a big, complex job.

We are in the process of setting up and transitioning to a Hybrid cloud environment, but it takes some time. We are currently exploring it. We have thousands of servers in AWS and Google cloud, and we have an internal VMware cloud as well.

The NetApp team helped us with the deployment and also helps with the patches.

We invested a lot of money in our NetApp AFF set up but we have a huge capacity. We balance it that way.

NetApp AFF is an expensive product, although not compared to other vendors.

We chose the A300 model based on recommendations from existing users. There are lower-end versions, such as the A250 and A260, but we didn't explore them.

Based on my experience, whether I would recommend this product depends on what the budget is. We have to determine whether we are achieving the right cost for the right product because the budget is the primary objective. Some cases may not require the capacity. Perhaps, for example, software-defined storage can manage it. To decide, we need to see what the application is, how much demand it needs, and what kind of performance it requires. All of these things need to be reviewed before we decide which products suit which situation.

Overall, NetApp AFF is a good product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.