NetApp FAS Series Reviews

We sold a very big solution this month. We sold two AFF 1K, A1K, and R2 with high availability with ONTAP on-premises to a large financial company. 

We are now working on an upgrade for another company. We are working on an upgrade to NetApp FAS Series 9150. They have a fiber channel MetroCluster, so they cannot move to an IP MetroCluster.

It helps us meet all customer requirements. Customers have been using NetApp for many years. They are very satisfied with NetApp and continue to use NetApp and upgrade to new solutions. They are very comfortable with the technology.

At this moment, autonomous ransomware protection is the key feature. Artificial intelligence, deduplication, and optimization are valuable. The AFF C-Series solutions that NetApp offers are great. I have sold a lot of AFF C-Series solutions because the cost of the disks is cheaper.

The adoption of the cloud in Argentina is very slow. Customers do not move most of their applications to the cloud. Moving applications is a simple task, but the cost is a concern in Argentina. There is an opportunity there for NetApp with Cloud Volumes ONTAP.

I have known NetApp for twenty years. I started working with NetApp in 2007 and continue to this day.

I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

It is a little complex. It is not the complexity of the product; it is the complexity because of the money.

We sold our own professional services. We have a professional engineer who installs and trains the customer, and we install the product. The satisfaction with our solution engineering is the best. We provide our own services, so the customer is happy with the service we provide them.

Customers always consider all companies and most of the business decisions are based on the global price at the end of the day. The competition offers similar solutions, but they are not the same solution. At the end of the day, the customer chooses the cheaper solution in most cases.

When the customer needs a NAS solution, NetApp is the first vendor they think of. In Argentina, most customers use SAN solutions, and for SAN solutions, they think of EMC, HPE, and IBM. Now, with the ASA solutions, NetApp is considered but not like with NAS solutions.

For me, it is a ten out of ten.

We are a solution provider and NetApp FAS is one of the infrastructure-related products that we implement for our clients. Our customers' use cases vary, where some of them use it as a backup target and others use it for the general workload. The primary use case is probably for general workload.

The most valuable feature is SnapMirror.

If our customer needs a high-performance storage solution then we don't recommend this product.

Some of our customers complain about not liking the UI, whereas others say that they love it. Also, some say that the FAS is too slow and some say that it performs fine. It's all relative and depends on the customer as well as the use case.

We have been working with the FAS series for about 10 years.

The FAS series is very stable.

The product scales really well.

The group that supports FAS supports all of the various NetApp products. I have found their support is responsive and thorough.

I regularly work with solutions from NetApp, Dell, and HPE.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price depends on the size and features. I've sold arrays for as little $20,000 USD and as high as $300,000 USD. It would be very difficult to give an average cost.

In some cases, there are costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

The suitability of this product depends on the use cases and the environment. For places where we sell it, it fits well. In places where it doesn't fit well, we would typically go with another solution like NetApp All-Flash storage, or something from another vendor.

My advice for anybody who is implementing the NetApp FAS series is to make sure that it's the proper fit. Perform a detailed sizing analysis prior to making the purchase.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The new FAS series is a good fit for some customers. We have good performance and capacity, even though it is full flash.

Once, I've been in a program, but they stopped supporting protocols like HTTP, STP, and that kind of stuff. All of the DIP supports at the beginning were kind of support when it was just Python and just five storage. And it happened a few times that the customer required the STP and HTTP protocol for storage. And I was surprised I couldn't do it anymore with NetApp. So, it would be beneficial for them to support both kinds of protocols.

The only little black points that I would put on top of NetApp FAS Series.

There is room for improvement in deployment and configuration processes. The thing with ONTAP is that we have a lot of layers, from the raw disks to the volumes we present to servers and configure. There are quite a lot of things to configure. Probably NetApp should ease the way to install that.

In NetApp products, such as ONTAP and FAS, a solid understanding of storage is still necessary to handle configurations in larger systems. It's not the same with Pure Storage or  Huawei. Even someone less familiar with storage could manage it, making it more accessible.

I have been working with the FAS Series for years. I started with NetApp in 2001. 

At that time, there was no SAN on the NetApp products. Moreover, I have certification in different versions. 

I am satisfied with the performance.

We have lots of competitors, so I have to address the storage needs of our prospects and customers. And while sometimes we are not chosen by NetApp. 

So if we want to try to get the deal when someone else is answering with NetApp, I have to go with WAP, potentially Huawei, and then sometimes Pure Storage. Most of the time, if I don't sell some NetApp, it's Huawei.

Huawei is a little bit easier to use than NetApp. Then it can be really very aggressive about the costs. So sometimes we have some customers that really don't look so much at the technical points and the performance or the function generality and want some cost. So, sometimes, it's a bit easier with NetApp.

Then, we offer solutions with business continuity similar to what Huawei provides—network clusters and related solutions, making the offerings closely aligned.

If I compare it to new storage vendors like Pure Storage, Pure Storage is just on pure under Flash array; it's just SAN. So, it's easy to deploy SAN on just the SAN environment. 

NetApp is a little bit easier to install and deploy than, for example, Huawei storage, Dorado, and stuff like that. That's the same kind of deployment tools. Very easy, very fast, like Pure Storage.

This is because NetApp has developed its deployment tools to be very easy to use, similar to those of Pure Storage, a newer storage vendor.

With the possibilities of making some DNS continuity into the cloud and stuff like that, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The most valuable features are the snapshots, the flash pool that we’re using, and cluster mode. When we are doing an upgrade, there is less of an impact on the customer when you use cluster mode. It still has some with CIFS, but at least it has less impact.

Compared to the previous solution, I would not say that it has really improved anything. We were with the HPE EVA before the NetApp. It takes more of my time to manage them, as opposed to HPE EVA, with which I created LUNs and it's done. I have a lot more tasks to do. At least now with NetApp, we can provide NAS services, which HPE EVA did not have.

I would like to see antivirus that works, and generally a working solution. They just provided Vserver DR, which is good.

Now we need to have a way to do some tests only because to do testing we really need to failover to the second site, destroy everything, rebuild it, and failback. I really need a test mode that is not as destructive, at least. There is no test mode. Maybe there is with ONTAP 9. I’m not sure. That’s probably a feature that doesn’t figure into the short-term roadmap.

For more detail:

With Data Ontap 7 if something was wrong there was a real passthru that was protecting us against a loss of service if something was wrong with McAfee.

Now with Cluster Data Ontap they introduce the AV connector and the passthru is not working correctly. We have delayed our migration to the c-dot environment for over 2 years now with open call at netapp. It tooks them over 8 months to admit there was a problem until a second customer get hit with the same problem we had. This has cause us service impact with our external customer, so we are running with the antivirus disable in our c-dot cifs shares since (at least they are used mostly by applications, not direct users).

We have 2 specific cases that happen:

* A McAfee agent upgrade that cause the Virus Scan Enterprise for Storage (VSES) to stop working
* A bad config in EPO pushing an invalid user to start the VSES preventing it to be able to read the file on the netapp

In September, a new version (1.0.3) of the AV connector that was supposed to fix these issues was available but it didn’t help the file access are still being denied. The test we did was for the second problem which is easy to reproduce. Just after that I was being interviewed during the Netapp Insight which has given that review.

Since we have worked with Netapp and McAfee, I have seen no real intent to have a functioning passthru. They instead finger point McAfee for not replying. We have tried an hotfix from McAfee but it is still not working.

For vserver DR this is a new functionality which is really good and very helpful for our DR solutions. The improvement that should be done to it is a better way to fallback, there is none currently so we need to delete all the setup, on the secondary : reconfigure it, copy everything to primary and then fail it back to primary. Then to reconfigure it properly, we need to delete, reconfigure and copy to the secondary.

It is very unstable. We have a lot of issues with antivirus programs interrupting us from providing services to our customer. As soon as something happens with McAfee, the customer had problems with our services.

With the 7 mode, we were okay. There was a real pass-through working correctly, so if something happened with the NT file server, the files were still being served to the customer. With cDOT, it's completely the opposite. It's completely out of service. We have a lot of service impact.

We have been delaying the CIFS transition a lot because of this.

We have been using technical support for over two years regarding services been down. Support was not efficient in that case. They are available. They tried. I was supposed to have a solution with the latest version. That was last week. I did the test, but it’s still not working.

Before the admin, there was an issue, it took close to a year until a second customer had the same issue. Then, they finally admitted that I wasn't the problem. It was an issue with the software. That's certainly why I rate them poorly.

When we moved from HPE EVA to FAS, it was to have NAS services. For NAS, NetApp was probably the best one at that time.

The initial setup was straightforward. I had no problem with that.

We also considered EMC at that time and HPE. For what we needed, NetApp was the best one.

The most important criteria we look for in a vendor is good service and quality of the product.

Properly define what you need first. After that, talk with people who know NetApp well, know how to set it up, and properly define the design architecture before doing it.

I provide NetApp FAS Series to my customers. Currently, I have installed the solution for a couple of broadcast customers or TV channels. Since TV channels are 24/7 on air, redundancy, availability, and stability are very important. We are a system integrator company, and for TV channels, cloud operations, ingest operations, live editing, performance, and stability are very important.

The most valuable feature of the NetApp FAS Series is its stability. We had a system installed five years ago, and we never touched it. It is very stable, and we never met with any performance issues. Also, the solution's management and administrative interfaces are very useful and user-friendly. The solution's technical support is very good in Turkey.

NetApp FAS Series should introduce an FTP application for the broadcast and post-production market. NetApp's older version had FTP, but they removed it. Some customers need to use external FTP servers, and some low-cost storage solutions have a built-in FTP. A lot of automation systems still use FTP for middle-class customers.

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for five years.

Three years ago, NetApp had an office in Turkey. They decided to move their office to a distributor a couple of years ago. The distributor hired the same NetApp employees for technical support and sales.

Now they have enough experience for support, and the current NetApp distributor keeps very high spare parts in stock. They provide 24/7 technical support, which is very important for our customers.

Positive

When you compare the price and performance, it is better than EMC Isilon. Performance-wise, EMC Isilon is better than NetApp FAS Series. So if a customer has enough budget and wants better performance, I will offer EMC Isilon.

The structure of both solutions is a bit different. NetApp FAS Series is a mix of scale-up and scale-out, but EMC Isilon has only scale-out. I offer EMC Isilon for some projects, and for others, I offer the NetApp FAS Series. However, most of the time, I use NetApp because Turkey is a price-sensitive country. So most of the time, NetApp FAS Series' price and performance are better than EMC Isilon.

The NetApp FAS Series is more scalable than EMC Isilon because it can scale horizontally and vertically, while EMC Isilon can only expand horizontally. And every time you need to buy a controller with a disc. For NetApp FAS Series, you can scale up capacity if you don't need more performance. EMC Isilon provides capacity and performance, but if you don't need more performance, you don't need to pay more.

The pricing of NetApp FAS Series is reasonable for its performance. If the customer just needs a solution for archive storage, NetApp becomes expensive because the customer doesn't need so much performance for archive storage. For such requirements, we can offer other local storage solutions to customers. It actually depends on the customer's budget.

I always get the bundle price, and I don't buy separate licenses because they have some bundle packages. I don't have separate license pricing.

I recommend NetApp FAS Series for users who need high performance and capacity because of its price, performance, and stability. I recommend NetApp FAS Series for Turkey because of its good technical support in Turkey. The support team provides spare parts for big cities like Istanbul and Ankara in four hours.

Overall, I rate NetApp FAS Series a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to store all kinds of data. It's an efficient way to store data in a centralized place instead of trying to store it in individual locations.

The solution's most valuable feature is its absolute reliability. We have used a MetroCluster setup that duplicates all data and system pieces, ensuring absolute redundancy.

The solution’s pricing is expensive.

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for 15 years.

The initial setup of NetApp FAS Series is not very easy. The last time we did an upgrade, it took around three days.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

NetApp FAS Series is a reasonably high-priced solution, partially because we select the configuration that duplicates the entire system. However, our management decided that it was worth the cost.

The two biggest things we look at are the solution's reliability and the support of the vendor. Excellent technical support and very good reliability are the solution's primary focuses.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for keeping our information reliable. In our case specifically, here at the operations location, we've got a MetroCluster for redundancy.

For us, the greatest aspect of the solution is the fact that it just runs. It is amazingly resilient. That's very important to us, because we are basically, with some exceptions, have a 24/7 operation. 

The newer features will be able to do things without interrupting the user experience, such as moving volumes on the fly, as well as adding and removing nodes to the clusters. That general set of features is pretty important to us.

The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth. I've actually spoken to NetApp about that. I understand from a little bit of my research that they do have another product out. They've renamed it. I don't know how much they've changed it. I don't know if they have made that a better fitting piece or if it's just got a different name.

I still have not moved to their most recent version. I believe they have incorporated several updates that I haven't had experience with yet. I'd hate to say, "Oh, we should put it that in there," and it's already there.

We have different geographical locations. The different locations probably would have a different timeline in terms of when they started using the solution. The location I am sitting at is an operations-based charter for our location and we have had the FAS type filer for probably 12 years or so.

The solution is very stable. It's quite reliable. We have it going 24/7. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches, at least not that I have experienced. It's good.

Scalability is not something that I would have much experience in from this location. We're a smaller site with about 1500 users. It's not something that has to be extremely scalable at our location. 

From talking to my coworkers at the larger locations, I believe that NetApp has become more scalable than they have been in the past, so they're going the right direction.

The solution's technical support is outstanding. We're more than satisfied with their level of service.

In terms of the initial setup, the migration of the MetroCluster, in particular, is more complex. 

I handle the management and maintenance of the solution myself, unless I need the assistance of a consultant.

We had a consultant come in and help us when we went from the non-clustered MetroCluster to the clustered MetroCluster for the different versions. That was a bit more than I wanted to tackle. I brought in the NetApp consultant to do that. I would say it was more complex than straightforward overall. The consultant even noted that when he was here that this is probably not something that, as a customer, he'd want to do on his own.

The consultant was excellent. He laid out a very clear roadmap of what we were going to do and broke it into three parts so that we didn't have too much on our plates and we could make adjustments in between each part. In the end, it was pretty smooth.

We haven't really done anything with the leasing options that they have recently come out with. We have instead outright purchased the equipment and all of the software that we use from them. 

It doesn't seem out of the normal range for other vendors. 

I don't really have a big pro or con stance on the pricing aspect of the solution.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with NetApp.

The FAS Series itself is not as complex as a MetroCluster configuration of the FAS. I would say if you're doing the MetroCluster configuration, it's worth it to get a consultant to assist. Almost every time that I have used a consultant, I have been very glad that I made the decision to hire them. I've done the incremental migrations on my own without difficulty, however, the big changes from platform to platform in particular, and from the non-clustered on tap software version to the clustered on tap software version are more difficult to perform. It's worthwhile to get consultants in those instances.

The single FAS setup, I would say, the first time I did it, was probably the biggest learning curve. Regardless of the vendor, I would probably recommend having a consultant come in for the first time you're learning all the ins and outs of the solution. After that, the migration for the individual FAS and non MetroCluster FAS seems to be very manageable if you've got a certain level of experience. If storage is kind of an extra task for you versus your primary task, you're probably going to want to pull in a consultant regardless.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it for the production system with high workload.

NetApp is the best solution because of price and production. It offers data compression and people management.

Installation of the additional switches and ETP could be improved.

I have been using the NetApp FAS Series for three or four years.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

4,000-5,000 endpoints are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup takes an hour to complete. If we install simple storage, we can install it by ourselves.

NetApp is the economy or the physical port.

We have two engineers that manage storage and backup. We search devices with easy management. It has a very simple integration.

If you want high performance on the Domino's system, please read the conclusion.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.