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, Nutanix, VMware and others in HCI."I've had to open a few support cases over the years due to administrator errors, and the support received was top-notch."
"The product gave us a cost-effective way to deploy a highly available server environment."
"The instant failover, with vSAN copying data to the second node, allowed for the continuous availability of our applications."
"This has helped to improve the reliability of service and operation in all departments, without having to stop in case of emergency situations."
"When we need additional storage but want to keep the size of the SANs manageable, the StarWind Virtual SAN has allowed me to do everything needed."
"This product now allows us to migrate virtual machines between nodes as if we had a dedicated $100,000 SAN in the mix without the additional cost and management of the SAN."
"StarWind Virtual SAN can improve an organization's storage infrastructure by providing high availability, scalability, cost-effectiveness, performance, and ease of use."
"The ability for us to manage all of our nodes from the same console makes systems administration very easy."
"This is a strong product and it works very well, and the processes around it continue to grow and mature."
"The most valuable aspects are that it's an all-in-one solution and it's very self-contained."
"It is scalable, and NetApp Deployment Engine (NDE) makes its deployment easier."
"The most valuable feature is the software design storage that really provided a faster, agile, easier to scale up and out storage path."
"HCI has helped with storage persistence across private and hybrid clouds for the last year. It's faster and more reliable with minimal downtime, as it doesn't require any maintenance."
"Scalability was another thing I was looking at. The solution, by its very nature, is designed to be expandable and flexible, so you don't have to buy performance you don't need today, but you're also not stuck with something you can't expand."
"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."
"Stability is one of the things we absolutely have to have, because if the HCI is down, our assembly lines are down, and that could potentially lead to our customer being down. If our customer is down, that's $10,000 a minute; and any time the assembly line is down, that could potentially lead to overtime. We don't get to charge one and a half times for something we billed just because you happened to build it on overtime. Any technology we bring in, has to be built for what I call "three in the morning." It can't be built for whenever everybody's in the plant, everybody can watch it, and everybody can babysit. It has to be built for three a.m. when you've got a skeletal staff there, and you just have to know that it's just running. As I stand here, right now, I don't have to check my phone, I don't have to check my email. I know it's running. Period"
"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 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."
"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."
"It is stable and scalable."
"It would help us if the vendor continues to release software updates for earlier versions of the Windows operating systems."
"This solution should be more self-sufficient, running without creating domains or failover clusters."
"I would like additional documentation regarding possible networking configurations with 10GbE switching."
"The documentation could be a little more concise, but, for the most part, it just works."
"The console is something that I believe could be enhanced."
"StarWind currently has a Windows native application that it uses for management. There is not a web-based GUI at this time."
"We don't really have any issues with this product."
"For improvement, I would like to see how the software determines which networks to use for which purpose. It seems like the naming terminology changes a bit from here to there."
"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."
"It is difficult to get acclimated to all the new features quickly. The onboard process could be improved to bring clients up to speed faster."
"The administration side of it needs to be improved. We expect an easier interface and a single upgrade for updating the infrastructure."
"It would be nice to have better access to tutorials and a test environment for simulations."
"I would like to have the ability to replicate to multiple sites."
"The vCenter keeps crashing, meaning that there is no stability in our environment."
"It would be great if they took something like kernel storage and integrated straight into the NetApp as well."
"It is easy to install now, but could potentially be even simpler."
"It should be more user-friendly, in my opinion."
"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."
"The cloud deployment could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"This product is not so stable. Maybe it is just not mature enough in its development."
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.
