The integration with cloud ecosystems has not effectively supported our hybrid cloud deployments as we use directly the provider, not the hybrid cloud. I don't have any add-on to suggest for improvement, but in my opinion, the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 product is pretty good. I am satisfied with what I have in NetApp NVMe AFF A800 and don't require additional features in the next release. They should promote NetApp NVMe AFF A800 more for other clients in my region.
Chief Technical Office at a comms service provider with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 10
Nov 17, 2023
The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better. I don't expect to see additional features in the solution.
Programmer Analyst at a university with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Sep 11, 2023
Cost and speed are the biggest concerns. NetApp systems they're not slow, but they don't match the raw IOPs of some other parallel file systems design. The underlying architecture of the NetApp system isn't as conducive to pure raw speed, whether it's data I/O or metadata I/O, compared to some of their competitors. So that's a significant weakness. And they're extremely expensive. But that expense is justified in terms of management. Cost and speed are the biggest concerns. The AFF A800 is an all-flash array, so it's not slow, but it doesn't match the raw IOPS of some other file systems that are designed for high parallelism. The underlying architecture of the AFF A800 is not as well-suited for pure raw speed, whether it's data I/O or metadata I/O. This is a significant weakness compared to some of the competition. And of course, the AFF A800 is also very expensive. There are many features I'd like to see included, but most of them are niche features related to our use of QTree or other specialized aspects. There could be more types of migrations that can be done through the management interface, rather than relying on a client.
Director Global Storage at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Dec 17, 2020
I can't recall any shortcomings in the product. There aren't really any features that are lacking in any way. The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less.
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is recognized for delivering low latency and reliable management interfaces. It provides stability, encryption, and easy initial setup, with management tools including APIs, GUI, and CLI. Users value its efficiency in data handling and rapid response times.The NetApp NVMe AFF A800 has earned recognition for its low latency, rapid input/output operations, and reliable management interfaces. It's appreciated for straightforward setup, encryption, and mature management tools...
For NVMe, the reporting and consolidation dashboard could be improved. The dashboard is not user-friendly. It should be more simplified.
The integration with cloud ecosystems has not effectively supported our hybrid cloud deployments as we use directly the provider, not the hybrid cloud. I don't have any add-on to suggest for improvement, but in my opinion, the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 product is pretty good. I am satisfied with what I have in NetApp NVMe AFF A800 and don't require additional features in the next release. They should promote NetApp NVMe AFF A800 more for other clients in my region.
The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better. I don't expect to see additional features in the solution.
Cost and speed are the biggest concerns. NetApp systems they're not slow, but they don't match the raw IOPs of some other parallel file systems design. The underlying architecture of the NetApp system isn't as conducive to pure raw speed, whether it's data I/O or metadata I/O, compared to some of their competitors. So that's a significant weakness. And they're extremely expensive. But that expense is justified in terms of management. Cost and speed are the biggest concerns. The AFF A800 is an all-flash array, so it's not slow, but it doesn't match the raw IOPS of some other file systems that are designed for high parallelism. The underlying architecture of the AFF A800 is not as well-suited for pure raw speed, whether it's data I/O or metadata I/O. This is a significant weakness compared to some of the competition. And of course, the AFF A800 is also very expensive. There are many features I'd like to see included, but most of them are niche features related to our use of QTree or other specialized aspects. There could be more types of migrations that can be done through the management interface, rather than relying on a client.
The product’s UI could be better. At present, it needs improvement in terms of visualization.
Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve. Stability is very important so that you don't lose your data.
The technical support has room for improvement. The price has room for improvement.
Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial.
The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach.
I can't recall any shortcomings in the product. There aren't really any features that are lacking in any way. The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less.