There are no issues integrating NetApp FAS Series with the IT environment. The only hitches we encounter are with HBA drivers and especially the Unisphere software and HBA client software. We normally avoid current versions and use versions that have been running for at least two months in client usage before updating drivers. We have a community where we share updates, addressing compatibility issues collaboratively.

I would rate the scalability and ability to expand as seven or eight out of ten.

NetApp FAS Series is scalable, and it is possible, but you need to pay. I would rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The NetApp FAS Series is scalable and offers numerous solutions, but only if customers are willing to invest in the shelves. When purchasing NetApp FAS, it comes with installed disks, but scalability depends on installing disk shelves. If customers are willing to pay for an archival solution, understanding that it won't be lightning fast, the scalability rating would be nine. It maintains simplicity while being slower in performance.

Depending on the product your are using in NetApp portfolio but they can scale easily.

We're considering expanding. We're not committed to it yet. We're weighing our options and considering expanding our usage. It can help us manage our data more effectively and get our data better governed, which will prepare us for the future. It could also help us get to the cloud. AI is coming and it could help us there.

The product does improve our performance. It is scalable enough.  

For scalability, we've found that even if you have a three-year-old service... the way NetApp works, we must buy new equipment every five or six years. 

It's as if there's planned obsolescence... we don't have the option to upgrade the solution over a long period. 

So, for scalability, I'd give it an eight out of ten. There was one instance where we needed to add disks, but the filer was full. We ran out of space to physically add them.

We had to buy extra equipment to support adding more disks to the filer when it reached maximum capacity.

1,000 users are using this solution.

It is a scalable solution.

My company had around 3,000 users of the solution.

We could potentially scale up to 52 nodes. However, our most extensive deployment right now consists of 6 nodes.

Upgrading the data size is easy with the product. My company has 300 users. 

The product does not allow us to add disks. We need to add a completely new disk shelf to scale the product. The solution is suitable for enterprise-level businesses.

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

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

I find it to be scalable both vertically and horizontally. It's a ten. It's super easy to scale.

The solution is scalable. 

It is a scalable product. I've seen it used at a bank in India with a large number of users and also at another customer site with about 250 users.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. We have almost 100 users in Pakistan. Our customers are medium and enterprise-level businesses.

The solution is highly scalable. Its FAS2700 series can scale up to more than 1000 terabytes.

We started with two instances, and now we are running four. It was very easy to scale them. We assembled them, connected them, and the business has been running very well.

On the second upgrade that we did, it was quite different because they started licensing based on the capacity of the disks. I thought this was strange, but technically speaking, it was very easy to upgrade the environment with minimal knowledge needed.

My impression on the scalability of the NetApp FAS Series is that it's good, but my usage is just below 50%, so scalability is not an issue for me.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is pretty easy to scale. It's good for medium-sized enterprises and also for larger enterprises.

The product is scalable. Five or six of our customers are using the solution.

The NetApp FAS Series is scalable.

The solution is scalable and can be added on to easily if needed.

NetApp has a structure that can grow very easily. You can expand by buying suitable model shelves. You can expand by the value allowed by the controller.

It is scalable to some extent. There is a limit, but then everything has a limit. We were using it at three sites across the US. We ran into this issue of hitting the limit just once in a while. When you are growing a cluster, you usually hit that limit.

NetApp FAS Series is a scalable solution. We scale transparently, and we scale out and scale up. If we are scaling up with heavy capacity, it's very simple. Once we loop it, we have it and send it. We don't even have downtime for that. 

Sometimes it's tricky when we need to cluster several controllers and to scale-out many times. But it doesn't really have a major effect on our business. Sometimes we schedule it to let the business know that there might be some downtime for a period. We are finding ways to reduce the impact, and I think it's seamless. If I have to rate it, I'll give it 85%.

The product scales really well.

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 tool is scalable. It depends on the models, though. The entry-level models have limited scalability.

The tool is scalable and meets our requirements for TVs. It handles beta bytes well. We are happy with its scalability.

The solution is scalable to some extent.

We have 400 nodes in one cluster and 1400 nodes in another cluster. Around 800-900 users are using the solution.

I rate the product’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable. It is recommended for medium companies. 

If we needed to scale beyond what we have now, we could do it. I would say NetApp's scalability is sufficient for our needs. We have hundreds of users accessing the file system on a daily basis.

NetApp FAS Series is scalable.

We have approximately 500 users that use this solution in my organization.

We use NetApp FAS Series extensively in our organization and plan to upgrade it for SSD to be faster. We are running our production server on this storage and we use it every second of the day.

The solution is scalable. We have not done much scaling but we know it can.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 30 people in my organization using this solution.

The product is scalable.

It's scalable. You can scale as much as you can have.

We have approximately 500 end-users in our organization.

It is easily scalable. You can easily scale up and use old and new products together. NetApp products are very scalable.

The solution is scalable at the data level because it uses aggregates so you can easily increase data. But of course it's dependent on your provision for growth reports. I don't know how many use the solution but our company has around 600-700 employees and we have two people dealing with maintenance on the product. It doesn't require more than that. 

We've had issues with scalability because the product that we were using went end-of-life many years ago, and we were not able to expand because there were no spares available.

One of the big features of NetApp FAS is the clustering of storage, which allows you to scale up the whole cluster using different models. This is broad and each HA is expandable.

I'm satisfied with the scalability.

The scalability is also good. You can scale on the fly, just connect the cables. If you're adding a controller or you're adding big shelves, it's easy to move. It's excellent.

The scalability is pretty good, but it's too expensive.

It acts as it was documented.

For the use cases I have had so far, scalability has been sufficient. But I don't know where the limits are. If you go into hundreds of millions of objects, you will probably see limits. Also, performance-wise, it's probably not the fastest solution on the market. 

You must have "flash cash" if you used the box to Oracle, any database environment, or any application that requires a lot of reads all time.

No scalability issues yet.

Not yet

No issues, as expansion was a breeze.

Yes, we have encountered issues. The system is limited by the number of enclosures.

No.

Nope.

Amazing how scalable it is. As a comparison, we looked at EMC vBlock as well, and if you want to upgrade, you have to use a forklift. With FAS, you just put in new shelves or heads.

Scalability depends on how it’s ordered, which is the job of an integrator and dependent on the customer's needs.

I haven’t had to scale in my department, but I foresee change in the near future because we’ll be taking on other portions of the government (medical, for example). Other portions will be somewhat isolated, but there is overlap.

It is very scalable. It has gotten much more scalable. With every level, it's becoming more and more scalable.

NetApp aggregates are scalable. You can keep adding shelves.

No issues encountered.

We've never had an issue with Clustered Data ONTAP, but we did with 7-Mode solutions and large amounts of data in the PB range.

There have been no issues with scaling it, other than during the actual deployment of new devices.

It's scaled well for us.

It scales for the kind of customers that we have.

We have six PB of data, and have had no problems with scalability.

It has scaled to our needs.

It scales to our needs.

It scales to a point, and then you buy more hardware. Doing a head swap (swapping out controllers) is not as easy as it used to be.

In the last growth, we went from a 3250 to an 8020. We’ve set it up to grow out easily by just adding trays.

7-mode scales very well. I’m even more impressed with where they intend to go with cDOT, but it may be rolled out prematurely.

Incredibly scalable. Not even touching what it could do. Between scale up and scale out, we’re not even close to reaching its highest potential. We have a four node NAS with the potential for 24 nodes.

Depends on how you’re scaling. If wide, it works well. Vertical scaling not so well because we’re primarily SMB. No matter how brief, people don’t like being offline (e.g. baby monitors).

Scalability especially in SMB range has been well-received. So long as the environment is sized correctly, it’s been good.

We’re still on 7-mode, but it still scales fairly well as the 6240 is a hefty machine.

Very scalable, haven’t reached its limits.

It’s scalable, but it could be easier. Just adding shelves might require additional cards and cabling, which can be difficult.

It scales pretty well, and the limit is how much you want to spend on blades, shelves, controllers, etc.

With cDOT, it's very good. It scales horizontally well, but not so well with 7-mode.

With cDOT, it's very easy to scale out, and that's the reason we went with it in the first place.

We've had no problems scaling. Our business has grown two and half times in size over six years, and we’ve added more disks and shelves, as well as upgrading controllers. We’ve done it without any down time.

It’s good, but you have to do a lot of homework to scale horizontally and vertically. You need to have sales and engineering to expend effort to do that homework.

I love cluster ONTAP. Being able to scale out and being able to increase performance by adding more heads to a cluster and being able to do hybrid with regular storage on same platform is huge. You can move out easily too, they provide you the tools to do that, adding a lot of value.

It's highly scalable, especially with CDOT. We can scale out quickly.

As we continue forward, we can add additional heads with same IOPS.

We haven’t really grown it but I see a roadmap, the only problem there may be cost. It’s not an expensive product per se, but because of budget issues. People sometimes don’t evaluate the cost correctly.

NetApp comes with an OS developed by its engineers, and its clustered data ONTAP, which supports clustering and scalability to a high level.

None