We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System 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."I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is."
"The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply plug it in and turn it on."
"They have really good baked in analytics to show you trends for growth history, so it does help with future planning for data growth."
"It upgrades in place which means we'll be using it well into the future."
"Scalability is one of the best features. You can quickly add more. You can swap out the drives with larger sizes, you can add more shelves. All of that is perfect - the whole concept of keeping it modular..."
"It helps to simplify storage because it has an easy front-end to access everything."
"We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"NetApp AFF is based on Unix, which makes it secure."
"We found AFF systems very competitive in terms of performance, storage efficiency, feature richness, and scalability."
"When we move to all-flash, our response times were reduced to microseconds."
"The speed, inline deduplication, and compression are really nice. It's also just easy to manage. We use Snapshot and SnapMirror offsite, which give us some good recovery options."
"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."
"The Snapshots and just the overall flexibility of the product have been great."
"Our architecture has historically relied on RDMs, so AFF has enabled us to easily migrate from our old EMC PowerMax to the new NetApp. It's been pretty smooth. We have a lot of SAP servers in our environment, so performance is critical for us."
"The speed is important; no more problems caused by high latency."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"Had some issues with Purity not being entirely compatible with VMware ESXi."
"The time-to-market could be better at times, but I think that's true for all vendors of hardware."
"Some services could be inserted directly into the SAN, so Pure Storage could complete with the HyperFlex."
"In the next version of this program, I would like to see increased security, higher encryption, and faster throughput."
"Areas for improvement would be the financial operations. In the next release, I would like to see a NAS protocol included."
"It is way in excess of what we need. If anything, we could see a bit more speed. I'm just comparing it with what some of my colleagues who are implementing their own systems do."
"The support for NFS protocols right out-of-the-box need improvement. I'm used to other storage vendors who have NFS support right out-of-the-box, and Pure Storage doesn't seem to have anything."
"It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure."
"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."
"One of the areas that the product can improve is definitely in the user interface. We don't use it for SAN, but we've looked at using it for SAN and the SAN workflows are really problematic for my admins, and they just don't like doing SAN provisioning on that app. That really needs to change if we're going to adopt it and actually consider it to be a strong competitor versus some of the other options out there."
"One of the features that I am looking for, which is already in the works, is to be able to take my code and automatically move it to the cloud."
"When it comes to the cloud, they might need to improve in terms of making it clear why someone would use a NetApp solution over cloud-made storage."
"It would be helpful if the compatibility matrix was a bit better."
"ZAPI is kind of difficult to use. You know, it's SOAP-like, it's not really SOAP. I would like to see it more of a REST-based JSON, instead of XML."
"NetApp could focus even more on the configuration."
"We'd like to see improvement in the time to retrieve from the Cloud, whether it's on-prem to cloud and whether it's public or private cloud."
"It has to be flexible according to the customer's requirements. It has to be aligned with the customer business and the business environment."
Earn 20 points
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews while Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is ranked 34th in All-Flash Storage. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System writes "Has a fantastic feature-set and works well with workflow solutions". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell Unity XT, Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series, whereas Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is most compared with Dell Unity XT.
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.