We performed a comparison between Kaminario K2 [EOL] and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."It helps us maintain uptime much better than other solutions we've used in the past, and the support is extremely quick and responsive."
"We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"It is always out of the box, and ready to use."
"The back-end data reporting for Pure Storage is phenomenal. The data that you can see on the performance of your customers' array, so you can be proactive about upgrades or enhancements, and is a phenomenal tool to have access to as a partner. I haven't seen this type of stuff out of anything of the other storage systems."
"It allows engineers to focus on other things rather than doing the more manual tasks. It automates tasks, so the ease of use is extreme. It simplifies the storage."
"The console is simple to use. It has good performance. It is easy to install, understand, and manage, with a good ratio of deduplication and compression. It is doing its job."
"Data reduction and compression. Sub millisecond latency."
"The tool is simple and easy to use. It has neat features like protection from device removal. Moreover, you can undo the deletes. The solution is easy to work with and not as complicated as CAC"
"Logic/software management"
"The most valuable feature is definitely the always-on data deduplication."
"Implementation of the solution is very simple."
"It provides a full feature set without separate licensing (deduplication, compression, snapshot, asynchronous replication, stable performance, etc.)."
"Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms would have had us license separately."
"The GUI is very straightforward and easy to use."
"The capacity that we're saving by using Kaminario's K2 is giving us a four-to-one ratio for our deduplication."
"Scale out is a differentiator for them, especially in the enterprise market. It's key for a lot of customers."
"Using System Manager for green management or command line interface, we have a single point for managing the cluster. It is much easier to manage. It is very seamless. The product is robust and solid."
"Speed. it's very performance designed. It's designed to have a lot of high speed."
"Regarding features, SnapMirror is one we depend on right now. It helps us provide snapshots to the customers on request. There are many scenarios in which we might take snapshots in various daily use cases. We trigger the snapshots, which gives us a sense of security because we know we have this technology in place if something happens."
"The cloning and snapshot features are the most valuable. With snapshot backup, we can clone a big database in minutes. We take a lot of snapshots for clients in different environments."
"I like some basic features like Snapshot, FlexClone, and advanced features such as SnapMirror, and SnapVault. They also recently enhanced the market with Cloud Volumes ONTAP. I think that NetApp is a very good product."
"Other manufacturers claim simplicity. In fact, frankly, they do have an advantage in that regard, however, they don't have the functionality. If you were to compare one of those products to NetApp, head to head from a feature perspective, NetApp would wind up in the top 10."
"One of the main features that we love about the system is the ability to create snapshots. NetApp makes a lot of snapshots in a short space of time. Also, the speed of data recovery with NetApp, at the time we need it, is an important feature that we love."
"The most valuable features are the flexibility and level of technical support."
"The time-to-market could be better at times, but I think that's true for all vendors of hardware."
"The initial setup was a little complex. We had some initial issues with the design and had to help correct some of the white papers for it, but it wasn't your standard use case."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"The file functionality could be better."
"I had to contact customer support when a drive failed as I was doing a couple of OS upgrades."
"A minor issue that comes to mind is that, every once in a while, a hard drive will go bad."
"I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for uses that we needed."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"The system currently has a 15TB LUN size limit and that snapshots need to be scheduled through script API instead of the GUI."
"I'm hoping to see Active Directory integration. Right now, you still have to use a local admin account to log in and manage everything."
"Access to technical support should be improved for our region. Technical support is good, but they're very hard to access."
"I would love to see capacity on its DRAM. I know it's not cost effective for them to do it, but I think that it could be a big differentiator and was a big differentiator from the beginning."
"I would like to see LDAP for the management panel; I've been notified they might be currently working on it."
"I think it should have better performance with small files. With big data, its performance is top notch, but it is difficult to load small files."
"Improved scale and budget planning with flexibility of the solution for budget needs and efficiency for growth with the great optimization ratio due to the nature of our use."
"In terms of improvement, the support could be a little better."
"One minor improvement could be making scale-up solutions with AFF more cost-effective compared to scale-out options."
"A graphical user interface displaying efficiency metrics, such as compression and deduplication rates, would be a great addition."
"When it comes to the connectivity on the back end, where the hardware is concerned—the cabling and the like—it could also be simplified to ease the communication between the nodes and between the other components of the infrastructure. I still find that a little bit complicated."
"The product should be more competitive and come up with additional features. They should keep the client always in mind and as the top priority. This would be the best way to compete with other solutions."
"The procurement process could be improved. It takes a long time for us to receive stuff. The product is good. It's not the product, it's just that it takes forever to get it. It's not our reseller's problem; it's usually held up at NetApp."
"I have experienced slow responses several times, if the ticket has only been opened in portal."
"The Bezels need improvement."
Earn 20 points
Kaminario K2 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews. Kaminario K2 [EOL] is rated 8.8, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Kaminario K2 [EOL] writes "Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms license separately". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Kaminario K2 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.