NetApp AFF - All Flash Reviews

We share data between systems as well as sharing data between our off-brand mainframe.

We got AFF as an upgrade from our existing older platform. We used to have an older version of NET. We had NET 7 Mode, and we had it for a very long time. AFF gave us a lot more performance. It is just a more reliable platform.

The Snapshots and just the overall flexibility of the product have been great.

Using AFF helped reduce our cost of licensing.

AFF has helped us with saving or optimizing our costs.

We have been able to optimize overall storage.

So far, we have not been affected by ransomware attacks since implementing AFF.

Being based on ONTAP makes migrating to the cloud much easier to take advantage of. We can figure out the cloud SVMs in a very similar fashion. That's been a big help. It's a technology we already know, so we can pretty much apply anything from ONFREM to FSx.

There are no specific areas that need improvement. There aren't any particular features we'd like to see in the next release.

Some of the graphical user interface changes in the later versions of NetApp have not been as good as the older ones, like in the 9.5 era. Just from overall usability from our tier three team, we've had to go in and fix some things after they go and do a deployment since there are certain options that used to be there that aren't.

It's been very stable.

For our uses, it's been fairly scalable.

Technical support has been great. We had to reach out to NetApp before when we had an issue or a hardware problem. They were helpful.

Positive

Before using AFF, we had some of the older FAS 8040 systems. We still have a couple in operation and some from way back in 7-Mode still on our current cluster.

We have been a NetApp shop for a while and just wanted to continue working with them.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did have a partner work with us to kind of get it up and running so that was a big help. Our experience with them was very good.

While I don't have the numbers to quantify it, I have seen an ROI.

The pricing seems reasonable.

We started to look to use BlueXP for managing our FSXN instances.

We will be using it to help migrate from an on-prem to a cloud environment. We are starting to migrate some of our workloads as we work on closing one of our data centers. So, we'll probably be using that for migration purposes.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use the solution for virtualization. We run VMware on it.

Before running AFF we ran regular SAS Disk Arrays. NetApp AFF greatly improved the performance.

The speed is great. That's probably number one in terms of features we appreciate.

The throughput is excellent.

It's useful for running production databases on.

NetApp AFF has reduced our operational latency. It has close to doubled it.

The setup process could be easier. 

I used NetApp AFF for six years.

I never had any major outages or issues with the platform.

Scaling is easy enough. Users can just throw another shelf in. It's easy to add hardware. 

Support is good. I've never had any issues long term.

Positive

We've used Dell EMC in the past, and we use Pure now. 

Pure is easier to manage just from an interface perspective, however, I would say the performance of both is close to equal. We chose AFF primarily for the level of performance. That said, the team that works for me has more experience with Pure. The issue we have is that the footprint is way smaller.

I was involved in the initial deployment of AFF. I've done it quite a few times and I find the process to be straightforward.

The deployment could be easier. Pure setup is way easier in comparison but I had no problem setting AFF up. 

The initial setup has a lot more steps in it than are probably necessary for a base deployment, unlike other vendors where it's more straightforward. It could be a little bit more streamlined.

I handled the deployment myself. 

We haven't quite witnessed an ROI. Eventually, it becomes cheaper as we go along instead of going all cloud, however, in the end, it's probably pretty close to equal.

They sped everything up initially. However, are there other products that have a better ROI? Maybe. Pure probably has a better ROI overall and especially when you start talking about Pure Evergreen and the way that they do their maintenance. That's a big difference that helps a little bit with the cost long term.

The pricing is  pretty in line with industry standards.

We did not evaluate other storage issues. 

We are a NetApp customer.

So far, the solution has not optimized our costs. 

Since using the solution, we have not been hit by ransomware. 

We do not use any other NetApp cloud solutions together with AFF.

In terms of rating the product by itself, I would give it a nine out of ten due to some of the usability differences that I know now. Overall, against other vendors, I would probably rate it eight out of ten based on the footprint size and some of the longer-term support features.

NetApp AFF is a data storage system that replaces old ones. It has primary applications or primary workloads and the typical storage business cases.

The most valuable features of the solution are the software bundle, replication, and cloud connectivity.

NetApp AFF is a highly expensive solution, and its pricing should be reduced.

I have been using NetApp AFF for five years.

I rate NetApp AFF a nine out of ten for stability.

The solution is scalable. However, you cannot buy one disc at a time. You have to buy a pack of two discs, which is expensive. You also have to buy the support and the software. Scaling the solution is not super cheap. Our clients for NetApp AFF are usually enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

NetApp AFF is a highly expensive solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten.

The solution's data protection features support our business continuity plans. Typically, customers buy on-premises systems and may have some connections to the cloud. I would recommend NetApp AFF to other users because it's reliable and has a lot of features.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We have a workload class that requires better performance. 

The tool has lowered latency. 

In the current atmosphere, private cloud is improving. NetApp AFF needs to provide flexibility in terms of hardware and capital expense. 

I have been working with the product since 2017. 

NetApp AFF does a good job in terms of support. 

The product's deployment is straightforward. 

The tool's ROI is primarily on the performance workload. We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

You need to be careful with the licensing since it can become expensive 

We evaluated Dell, Hitachi and Pure. 

NetApp AFF has improved efficiency and sustainability. It has simplified our infrastructure and reduced the costs for staffing and equipment. 

The product has doubled performance. 

We also have Dell Storage. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for SQL server-based applications.

The last customer I worked with wanted to improve the performance of SQL responses. They were having issues with multiple SQL statements taking time. Although it's not just a hardware-only solution, they had to do both, which meant replacing their previous hardware and, at the same time, improving their queries. That combination was most important for the customer.

Since I know NetApp's systems, staying with NetApp was one of the best features. For example, Flash is the solution for latency. It reduces latency. The SQL server benefits from all-flash storage, and NetApp is among the most responsive.

I actually did major projects where we used NetApp storage for some government agencies, and we were able to keep the storage where the government or the customer is able to own the storage while using AWS as their computing. That part was helpful to the customer.

The improvement I would like to see is not just about NetApp. Rather, it's about improving the hardware itself in terms of its lifecycle. How long is it going to stay as responsive, for example. Their rates have improved; however, there is still room to improve.

I'd like to see them continue with scalability and have the ability to scale more. Hopefully, it gets more compact than it actually is for the scale that we're looking for. 

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. That part either needs to have improved technology or improved visibility to the customer. Why should I use that instead of something that seems to be less expensive? They need to explain that more than simply saying ROI is good and the TCO is good. People need a little bit more. It's not easy in this space for people to choose a product. When you go online, you want to have a simple way to choose.

I've been using the solution for about five years.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. 

The scalability is good with NetApp. It's fine for most people. There would be some places where it would be difficult, whatever you do.

We tend to work with environments based on petabytes. 

I like NetApp support. They're very consistent. It's not only the NetApp hardware that you get support with. It's also within that area where NetApp's hardware is, and even software is involved in a total solution with third parties. NetApp's support cares about the total solution and is willing to help.

There are always issues of who should be the right person to address items. Sometimes there's making sure that whoever owns this error is the person you're working with. It takes someone with experience from the customer perspective to know that it will be better if you work with NetApp on that level. That being said, sometimes it can get difficult.

Positive

I did previously use another storage solution.

I have been using NetApp for more than 20 years, and I know NetApp's technologies and support. There is reliability that there is going to be a continuation of technology, and so those are reasons why I continue to choose the solution.

The initial setup process is okay. If you are experienced, it is fine. 

While it's not easy, with the instructions they have, it's straightforward. It just takes some level of expertise or experience in NetApp solutions to be able to do it.

NetApp AFF optimized our customers' costs - or at least, the customer believes so. I didn't do a first-time TCO or ROI.

The pricing of the solution could be improved to better favor the customer. 

Since we've implemented NetApp AFF our clients have not been affected by ransomware attacks. My customer is not in that position, as they would be on-prem and unconnected.

We do use other NetApp services, mostly around volumes and cloud solutions. I have not had any hands-on experience with object storage yet.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We were using a NetApp 2240 Filer, which was spinning disk and a mix of SATA and SAS. We were trying to put a production SQL Database load on it and the IOPS were way too immense for it, so we ended up buying this AFF box. It solved all the issues, at the time. We haven't needed it for anything else.

The NetApp 2240 Filer was at our location in Mexico. Because we had so many issues with it, I was down there every other week during that entire summer. I was very relieved when we got this AFF in place and it resolved all of our issues.

It not only saves on travel, but it also saves on any latency issues and administrative overhead. We had more problems with spinning disk than we've ever had with an AFF.

Another advantage is that it helps simplify data management across SAN and NAS environments, on-prem and in the cloud. We have 96 production locations that each have a NetApp Filer of one sort or another. Administration and overhead could be a serious concern given that we have two guys, senior global storage engineers, to monitor those sites. But the fact is that we never have to worry about the sites that we have the AFF in. The ONTAP data management software is a part of that as well, simplifying our operations. Having two guys monitoring 96 sites would never happen without it.

There's no overhead. There is no replacing of disks or rebuilding of arrays. Every time you lose a spinning disk and it's in an array, you end up having to rebuild the array and it slows everything down.

It has cut our personnel costs in half. Along with all the other advantages I've noted, it has saved us a ton. Annually it has probably saved us well over $300,000.

NetApp AFF has definitely reduced troubleshooting and support issues for us. 

The benefits of being on AFF are the

• phenomenal speed at which we're able to ingest data and index it
• the IOPS.

I've been using NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) for about five years.

I want to call it a "Ronco." You Set it and forget it. We paid a premium for the AFF units but we never have to worry about them. They just work.

The scalability is phenomenal.

The tech support has been wonderful. We don't use them often, but when we do use them we always get the support we need. And sometimes they contact us with issues that we didn't know exist.

Positive

For storage we used both Dell and EMC. We switched because of the cost and the level of support. NetApp support is far better than anything we ever received from either Dell or EMC.

In terms of the solution’s Cloud Backup Services, back in the day, we were using a disk-to-disk-to-cloud solution for backup. NetApp had actually purchased a company called AltaVault and we used that solution. We were all onboard. Last year, NetApp announced that they were no longer going to support the AltaVault platform. We've since moved away from that but we do still have NetApp in Azure for our SAP implementation, but it's direct in the cloud, not a backup to cloud.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took under an hour to set up.

The only area where the product has room for improvement is the cost.

We looked at HPE, and because we were using Dell and EMC and IBM storage prior to moving to NetApp as our global standard, we considered them.

When it comes to support for both file services and block services AFF is the 
top. The best.

It's used for SAN environments and a lot of VMware utilization.

For our customers, the main benefit is the performance they get with NetApp AFF. We have a lot of feedback from customers about how their applications work faster and that they are very happy with it.

We deploy it a lot for VMware environments and, with VMware, we have nearly all the client's applications. We can have 500 or 1,000 virtual machines on the AFF. Sometimes they tell us that a compute application that, with earlier generations of storage solutions, took hours or days, takes much less time with AFF. For some customers, it takes three or four or five times less, with the new AFF.

Using NetApp AFF has also helped to reduce support issues. It's very stable and we don't have a lot of issues with it. I can talk a lot about this aspect because sometimes we provide support for NetApp. We have certification for level-one and level-two NetApp support. We only escalate the L3 support to NetApp. It's a very good technology with very few bugs.

In addition, the ONTAP data management software has simplified our clients' operations. NetApp is simple to manage. You can grow and reduce the capacity, and you can create a backup copy through replication with SnapMirror and SnapVault. There are a lot of features in NetApp and they are simple to implement.

The most valuable features are 

• performance
• storage efficiency, due to the compression and deduplication.

We use StorageGrid in two ways. The first usage is stand-alone to provide S3 object storage. And the second use case is to use FabricPool, the NetApp technology that moves a snapshot from the AFF to AWS. It's a very good solution because AFF is SSD technology, meaning the storage is expensive. It's very helpful to have the ability to move cold data, like a snapshot, out of the SSD.

We have an S3 protocol with the AFF, but there are a lot of limitations. The new ONTAP version has S3, but we can only do a very small volume.

Another issue is that for smaller customers, NetApp doesn't have enough disk sizes. You begin with a 980-gigabyte disk and the next size is 3.8 terabytes. There aren't any disk sizes in between. Competitors have more choices in disk sizes.

I have been using NetApp AFF since the beginning. I have worked with NetApp for more than 10 years.

We are a distributor, so we install a lot of storage for many customers. I have worked with all the models, including the AFF C190 and C220, the FAS8020 and 8040, the AFF A300, the AFF 700, and the biggest was an AFF A900.

The stability is very nice. I've worked with NetApp for a long time and the stability has been excellent.

We can very easily add volume with new disks and we can add more compute with more controllers. And we can refresh and upgrade hardware very easily. We do that very often and customers are very happy with this aspect.

NetApp support is very good if you have a very serious disaster, such as a service interruption. You can ask for help from L1, L2, or L3 and get someone connected with you. But when you have a less important issue, such as a bug or a feature not working as you want, but you don't have a service interruption, the support is very slow.

Positive

The initial deployment of NetApp AFF is easy. We can deploy it in a very small amount of time. The NetApp is pre-configured so you just have to run the setup, with some workloads that are already ready. In a few hours you can have production running on it. And for customers, it's very easy to learn how to use it.

The implementation strategy for each environment is always a little different, but the main architecture is very similar. We always do a workshop with the customer, at the start of a project, and we design it for their specific requirements, but overall, the architecture is always similar.

We have a specific service for the maintenance of NetApp, and that team has six people, but they maintain all our NetApp installations, not only AFF.

Our clients see return on their investment in AFF, due to the stability and efficiency. The efficiency is very important because we can buy fewer disks for more data.

The list price of AFF is too expensive. But we have a good connection with NetApp and we can get a very big rebate and that makes the price similar to the competitors' pricing. But I would tell NetApp that they need to be careful with the pricing of the new NVMe disks. They are way too expensive.

We use AFF a lot in MetroCluster architecture, with synchronous replication between two data centers. In this scenario NetApp has some very hard requirements, like a specific switch that is mandatory. Its competitors don't have all these requirements. So sometimes it's very difficult to win projects as a result.

But on the positive side, NetApp is very performant, very stable, and easy to manage. And when it comes to support for both file services and block services, NetApp is definitely better. We tried some of the competitors' solutions and with them it's not so easy. The NAS protocol is very good in NetApp.

Try it. It's a good solution. In a MetroCluster environment, I think it's the best solution on the market today, with flash technology. You can have flash and synchronous write between two data centers.

A lot of customers use NetApp with NAS and SAN. It's not a key point, but it's a good feature.

We are mostly using it for ESX, i.e., a mix of both CIFS and NFS shares, and NAS purposes. 

We have a team of four core NetApp trained people from the storage team who are managing NetApp. Two of them are in the learning stage, and I am one of them. 

Performance-wise, NetApp is very good. 

The NetApp FlexVol feature is helpful because we can copy large amounts of data in minutes as well as include data quickly. That is definitely one of its plus points as well as it being all-flash. 

It simplifies data management for NAS environments with its ease of management, ease of share creation, and Active IQ feature. These features are good overall. It helps us manage data quickly and sufficiently. Also, compression features, like dedupe, give us a good ratio.

We are using ONTAP 9, which has simplified our operations.

There is room for improvement in terms of support. I have noticed that if I sometimes call their customer care for a particular issue, they will give me another number and ask me to call that other team. It would be better if they could do a warm transfer. That would save customers time from calling all the numbers again and speaking to another team. 

I have been using NetApp AFF for almost two years.

Stability has been pretty good.

There has been a lot of improvement on drive failures after the patch. Now, drive failures are negligible, which is a plus point. 

Previously, there were SAP instances where we used to have a lot of issues, such as performance issues, P1, etc. However, with NetApp, those have been almost negligible.

We can extend the solution, per our wishes, which is also good. The environment for this solution is about eight to 10 petabytes. 

The solution has been widely accepted by our management. 

I would rate their technical support as nine out of 10. Sometimes, it depends on to whom I am speaking. However, most of the time, technical support has been very good, apart from one or two negligible instances.

Positive

We were using a different vendor for virtualization, then we switched to NetApp. The feedback from the VMware team is that things have improved. 

We were using Oracle Veritas previously. Sometimes, their technical support was not that user-friendly. While the hardware was good, it needs to be good going end-to-end. So, if we had an issue, then they were not as helpful, technical support-wise, as we have seen from NetApp. Apart from that, the features that NetApp provides overall are better than what Oracle used to provide.

I have worked on HPE products, but that has primarily been on 3PAR, which is mostly for SAN protocols.

I was not a part of the initial setup.

The data rate is faster because there are no spindles on it.

We are using Commvault for backup purposes.

If you are looking for long-term stability, performance improvement, and data compression, NetApp is the answer.

There are a few sites where our other vendors' contracts are running out. Most of those are getting replaced with NetApp. That is definitely in the pipeline.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10. I am holding back one point for future improvements.