Its use cases include everything from high bandwidth to low latency, AI workloads based on NVMe drives, and all the way to our basic home directories and what I call common plop-and-drop drives for the teams.
The challenge that we were trying to address by implementing NetApp AFF was that we needed truly high-speed storage to feed the GPUs for AI/ML workloads. We also had the financial responsibility of being able to lower the QoS when we just needed basic storage rather than Pure high-performance storage.
NetApp AFF has helped with faster data, and at the same time, we are able to work with our solutions team to set up FlexCache share so that we can more easily set up data pipelines and data life cycles. We can also integrate with our corporate systems for replication.
NetApp AFF has helped to simplify our infrastructure while still getting very high performance for our business-critical applications. The flexibility to keep everything on superfast NVMe but also tweak the QoS has allowed us to centralize more of our storage services. We need less rack space. We are using Keystone for financial responsibility. We have centralized and standardized a lot of our ITOps.
NetApp AFF has not helped to reduce support issues, such as performance-tuning and troubleshooting, because we have not had any issues yet that we had to take a look at, and I hope we do not.
NetApp AFF has definitely helped to reduce our operational latency. Especially with the speeds of the drives and the network links and the network topology that we are able to put together, for not just huge dense workloads, we are able to scale out horizontally so everyone can get the same speed.
NetApp AFF has not saved us much cost, but the Keystone model that we are able to run AFF in partnership with has helped to save costs. Instead of making those huge capital purchases where we may purchase 500 terabytes and not use it, the consumption-based model has allowed us to be flexible. It gives us that financial flexibility to say, "We want to experiment with this more. Add it on." We can also say, "We do not need it. Take it back, and give us that plug-and-play option."
The ease of use for setting up our basic shares such as NFS and CIFS is valuable. It takes a couple of clicks to set up things like object shares.
The ONTAP S3 implementation is not feature-complete as compared to StorageGRID. We had to move our lakeFS instance from ONTAP S3 based on AFF to StorageGRID.
The lab that I am developing has used NetApp AFF and NetApp storage for about two years, but I know that our organization, in general, has been using NetApp for storage for a long time.
I have not thought about it. It must be good because I have not had to think about it.
Based on your current needs and based on your inter-cluster switches, you need more storage added in, and you are good to go. You can create new aggregates and SVMs, and you are good to go.
The support is great. We have a dedicated team. I can work with our dedicated embedded professional services group. If it is a larger issue, I can send a message to our support ops engineer and get an answer right away, or even proactively.
This lab is brand new, we started with NetApp AFF.
I am a nerd at heart, so I worked with our professional services group to do the rack and stack. It was pretty straightforward. It was based on the idea of centralized controllers with expanded disk shares. We were able to work with our professional services consultant to get it set up in two days or so.
We were able to have those huge savings as our lab was being stood up, and now, as our usage increases, our cost increases, and as our usage decreases, our cost decreases. We have been able to see that trend match up with how we are using it.
We did not evaluate other options because it is part of a centralized storage offering with our company. We wanted to keep everything on the same level for ease of use for purchasing, operations, shared ownership, and everything else.
In terms of using other NetApp solutions or services, we use less of NetApp Cloud Services, but we do use Cloud Volumes ONTAP. We also use SnapMirror and FlexCache for a lot of the intra or inter-site capabilities.
I would rate NetApp AFF a 10 out of 10.