We performed a comparison between NetApp HCI [EOL] and Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, VMware, Nutanix and others in HCI."The access to our data is quicker and cheaper than it used to be in a traditional storage system."
"Virtualizing data infrastructure with StarWind Virtual SAN improves efficiency and reduces operational costs."
"StarWind vSAN has allowed us to grow rapidly while still providing flexibility and reliability."
"It has given the company an almost zero possibility of downtime."
"The best part is the easy way it operates with a very clear GUI without any unnecessary items."
"StarWind vSAN is easy to deploy and administer."
"A typical system administrator with minimal experience in Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows can do VSAN configuration and maintain VSAN operations."
"It integrates (fully) with VMware and Veeam, my hypervisor, and backup vendors, so for me, all the puzzle pieces simply fit and work smoothly."
"Our goal with NetApp HCI is to have no single point of failure."
"The most valuable feature, currently, is the density of the system as hardware. I'm able to leverage the density of the product and remove bigger hardware which requires more space, cooling, and power costs, obviously. There are cost savings, obviously."
"The ability to size the available space in a way that matches our company's needs is most valuable. For instance, you can decide if you want 80/20, 70/30, or 60/40 space. Redundancy depends on your needs without changing the appliance. You just add space and decide the percentage of space that you need free and the percentage of space that you need for backup. It is all automatic, and you don't have to do anything. You just add space, and the system automatically configures itself with the chosen option."
"The solution integrates well with all the other applications that we use on our environment."
"This is a strong product and it works very well, and the processes around it continue to grow and mature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the SolidFire interface."
"The solution is very scalable."
"It is easy to set up, and you don't have to do much work to get it to do what it needs to do."
"I like that you can add other types of services."
"The size of the hardware is what we need because it is very good for small configurations."
"The consolidation of the management in one control point is the most valuable. The whole infrastructure management is consolidated in just one console point. The documentation is also pretty good."
"The most useful feature is the solution's automation in terms of how we are able to spin up a certain workload in real-time when we are doing R&D."
"Both the scalability and stability of this solution are excellent."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The Command Center, a free guest VM for management and monitoring, leaves something to be desired. It could have more accurate real-time information and better reporting visuals, which seem to be an afterthought."
"While StarWind.com excels in numerous areas, there are a couple of notable functionalities that it currently lacks. One of these is duplication, which could be an invaluable feature for data redundancy and backup purposes. The ability to duplicate data across different storage locations can be crucial for safeguarding against data loss, and its absence is a minor limitation in an otherwise stellar offering."
"The only way I can see this product needing improvement is the consultation level of the StarWind sales and engineers."
"It would help us if the vendor continues to release software updates for earlier versions of the Windows operating systems."
"StarWind Command Center's single-pane management solution only works with Hyper-V."
"I did not see any indication that StarWinds vSAN is a usable solution with non-GUI instances of Hyper-V."
"Pricing is a bit high."
"We don't really have any issues with this product."
"The vCenter keeps crashing, meaning that there is no stability in our environment."
"There are some legacy applications which still cannot be migrated. That is why we have to keep two environments: legacy and the new one. We would like to see more compatibility to move stuff."
"The product needs better support for installing the operating system on the machine."
"The administration side of it needs to be improved. We expect an easier interface and a single upgrade for updating the infrastructure."
"I would like for them to fall a little closer to like the VMware release model. The new features and new solutions tend to come from the VMware side. I would like for NetApp to follow along closely with VMware's release schedule."
"My biggest pain point is the installation part. I would like to see the appliance itself remove the entire switch that goes behind it and figure out how to do all the cluster interconnects within the box itself."
"I would like to see higher level graphics support because we are going to be doing some virtual desktop for our CAD software, and I want to be able to support AutoCAD and Cantillo on remote desktop machines."
"The networking needs improvement."
"It is not user-friendly, and it is very difficult to operate. You have to have a deep understanding of the technical details of the infrastructure to implement it. When you compare it with VMware, it is totally different because the graphical user interface is not that easy to understand. It is not intuitive. To use it, you have to read a lot of documentation and even understand what is going on behind the solution. It is not for someone who has a little bit of knowledge. Currently, it is too complex. I need something that is easy to implement. It should have a basic configuration as well as a complex configuration."
"This product is not so stable. Maybe it is just not mature enough in its development."
"The licensing policy needs to be improved. They have a licensing policy based on the number of CPU sockets. Nowadays what has happened is that the license they are trying to move is based on the number of CPU cores. With the advancement in technology there are now more cores in a single CPU. It's been very challenging in terms of managing the license around everything. Today we have a processor with 24 and 32 cores on the same physical CPU."
"The main issue is the initial investment. It is an expensive product, and it should be cheaper. It should also be easier to use and manage. The professional service for this solution is quite complex and expensive."
"It should be more user-friendly, in my opinion."
"The cloud deployment could be improved."
More Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Earn 20 points
NetApp HCI [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in HCI with 32 reviews while Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is ranked 23rd in HCI. NetApp HCI [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of NetApp HCI [EOL] writes "Ease of provisioning has allowed us to implement large installations in a very short time frame". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure writes "Comes in a small, compact model that does not have any separate management but it is not so stable". NetApp HCI [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Red Hat Hyperconverged Infrastructure is most compared with VxRail, VMware vSAN, Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI).
See our list of best HCI vendors.
We monitor all HCI 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.
