NetApp AltaVault Reviews

• On-prem
• Fast recovery
• Moving away from tape and archiving to the cloud

We're still into the development, bringing it into production, but we had issues with performance so we're not fully in production yet. The jobs we have baseline into the AltaVault, it seems to be able to recover faster than the previous solution.

We would like

• reliable monitoring
• to be able to offload into glacier naturally, through policy
• to unlock the file system restriction between the on-prem cache and the logical space.

We've had a lot of issues, crashed the service console a lot, service crashes. One of the motherboards died because it hit a bug. They shipped all the AltaVaults with the same OS that had the same bug condition. We've upgraded now, we hit all their bugs with AD authentication, all the issues, so we're trying to solve those right now.

We haven't gotten to the point that we need to scale it yet.

We're still working with a PS engineer. Tech support, when we raised some of the issues we had, has been 50-50. Sometimes there seem to be conflicting answers, then it gets escalated. Then we get the actual solution to the problem.

We use AltaVault for cloud-based back up. We have connected it to a public cloud service.

I gave it a seven out of 10 because right now we're just performing at an average, it's not blowing away.

If I were to advise a colleague at another company who is researching this or a similar solution, I would say make sure you get a good PS engineer involved. It needs maturity. I'd wait another year to see where the OS is.

We meet the requirement of having stuff that's backed to the cloud. It's eliminated tape-based backup systems. There is better security for backup data, because nobody can get it. It's encrypted, in the cloud, so you can't. The cloud puts it in some kind of encryption.

You can store backups for a while.

We did have some issues with the software and the firmware. We had to update it, but that was it.

It's not been an issue right now. We just purchased a new one.

We have used tech support. If you get the right person, it's good. We have had issues getting to the right person, but once you get to the right person, they are knowledgeable.

We had Brocade, and then we went to this, AltaVault. We were looking for something to backup to the cloud that was easy to use.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The pricing is not too bad, but could be a little better.

It was Riverbend or NetApp, and we chose NetApp because they have good support.

We're doing AWS S3 with Glacier with cloud-based backup. The integration is good. It works with Veeam and Commvault. We are using Commvault for our backup software.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: support.

I'm pro NetApp, so I recommend the solution.

Replacing an aging tape infrastructure by being able to backup to local cache as well as to the cloud.

• Able to reduce administrative burden on tape management.
• Able to simplify and streamline our backup process.

More in depth reporting about the files in local cache: Where they are, how much there are, and what files it is moving to and from the cloud, as it needs to. Most of that's kind of behind the magic curtain process that we don't have a whole lot of visibility into.

Also, we were actually able to discover a bug in the product that they're still working on. We've been working with their tech support trying to get it fixed. It's a bug with the Server Message Block (SMB) Protocol with older Windows operating systems. This is something we absolutely want fixed in the future, basically as soon as possible.

We haven't had any stability problems (full uptime).

We have not had any issues yet, though we haven't scaled either.

They listen to what their customers are saying.

We have extensively used tech support. It's decent.

We were previously using LTO-5 with Quantum. We switched because our tape infrastructure was rapidly becoming unable to handle the amount of backup data, and our engineers were having to replace tapes very frequently as well as the speed of backup, and just the management. Our business was quickly moving to a backup everything forever model, which tape is not geared towards.

I was involved in the initial setup in my organization. We connected AltaVault to to AWS Glacier, and for backup software, EMC NetWorker.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward. There were not many issues at all with the setup and configuration. The Glacier side setup was a little unclear, due to some problem with documentation, but we were able to work through it together.

We chose AltaVault based on a couple of insights ago, when NetApp first purchased it from Riverbed, we are also a Riverbed customer and so we figured that would fit very well. Most of our data is on NetApp, so we figured it would be a very easy transition. I believe we looked at a couple of other products from other vendors, but the NetApp solution seemed to be the most robust for us.

They're adding more to the product, and the overall vision of the product is correct and true.

Definitely make sure to look at the system requirements, make sure that you're onboard, and give it a try. Make sure you have people on your staff that are familiar with cloud, because it can be a little tough to set up if you're not already familiar with it.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Previous experience with vendor is always good.
• Industry penetration

We have a whole bunch of DR and backup auditing requirements, and this simplifies that process and strips back all the operational overhead of managing tape. With that operational overhead of managing tapes gone, we're able to focus people's time on more important things.

The flexibility. Being able to virtualize it, port it wherever I like, test my backups, test my DR capabilities whenever I like without impacting anybody. We had some problems with physical devices in the past and the virtual appliances mean I can shift it around whenever I like.

More than a 500 volume limit. At the moment, it only supports up to 500 volumes for SnapMirror and that's a problem. We've got 750, so a larger limit for volume replicas for SnapMirror.

It's quite simple to use. We haven't had many issues. This is really the last stumbling block for us. Once that limit goes away, it's almost set-and-forget. It's just how you want it.

It was a bit flaky to begin with, but 4.3 that we're on now has been great. We were early adopters so we ran into a few problems, but in recent times it's been good.

Scalability is awesome. With the virtual component, just being able to spin up whatever size one that makes sense, it's great.

We had this very technical problem. When we first stood the system up we used rsync to copy files across. That didn't work. We found that AltaVault didn't like hundreds of thousands of files, it wanted big, single files. So, we changed that and tarballed all the files up and sent them across and it all worked happily.

When we went to upgrade to 4.3, to SnapMirror to it, we decided to check with the virtual appliance, that we could actually retrieve data from the physical appliance. And when we did that, we found that there were symlink errors. What had happened when we did the rsync, it created the symlinks but when we deleted that out the AltaVault database didn't clear those symlinks out at the time. So, when we went to retrieve a file, it was looking for a symlink that didn't exist and there were a lot of problems. We worked with NetApp technical support to get a workaround in for us to be able to access that data from a second appliance and then were all up and running.

Technical support were excellent. Knowledgeable.

We were refreshing our storage about two years ago and, at the same time, our tape infrastructure was due for a refresh as well. As part of that our partners, including NetApp, worked with us and they showed us AltaVault and it appeared to be a great solution.

It was very simple. You power it up, give it some basic details, get an Amazon account, plug it in, and it works.

We did look at Hitachi. We did look at HPE. But we had a 15-plus year relationship with NetApp so it was more just kicking tires to confirm that there wasn't anything amazingly better out there. We were happy with NetApp so we stuck with them.

Our use case is cloud-based archive to AWS.

For us, when selecting a vendor, cultural fit is big. But, in this space, the cultural belief in the protection of the data is critical. We see NetApp as a technology company that has that at the heart of their strategy; keeping the data integral is number one, everything else comes after, and that's number one for us too.

The product does as it's intended, as it says. All of the features meet our experience. I would suggest to make sure that you are looking at fabric pulls and storage grid and ensuring that what they do with the AltaVault aligns with those technologies as well because there might be some other efficiencies you can gain there. So just have a broader look. But the AltaVault itself will do exactly what you need it to do.

We want to archive off-site, because it's cheaper.

We are using end-to-end encryption because we're putting out content in the cloud, so that's really important to us.

We are getting rid of our tape libraries, so this is an alternative to that. We don't have to have 100s and 1000s of tapes.

We are going into the cloud, so this helps us go into the cloud. It also has better security for backup data.

I have doing a PoC on it, so we're not in production. We're testing it right now for approximately 30 days.

It's pretty stable. I've tested it. It seems to be pretty stable.

We haven't tested it.

We haven't used the tech support yet as we're working with an account team to do the testing.

It's pretty straightforward. Nothing out of the ordinary.

We are testing NetApp because I am looking to save cost for our backups.

We are looking at Pure Storage. They have a different solution. That is something we are looking at pretty closely.

We are using AWS for cloud-based backup and have file and block storage.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Simplicity of the solution
• Support has to be really good.
• The company history pedigree: I want to choose a company that I can rely on for the next ten years.

Simplicity and that it removed a lot of moving parts in our environment. Like I said, we were able to reduce a courier, simplify the whole back up methodology, being able to get some of that data off to the cloud. Luckily, we haven't had to do any restore. We have tested being able to bring that data back but we haven't needed to use it.

That's just a big benefit: Being able to easily use the cloud.

It's pretty simple. Once you set it, it goes; and then the idea of being able to get it to the cloud very quickly. It's kind of a set-it-forget-it.

We were able to get rid of a single courier who was actually taking separate tapes with that database offsite, before we moved to AltaVault. We got rid of that courier; a bunch of tapes. We don't have to deal with a lot of that problem. We just move it onto the AltaVault and it goes out to the cloud.

Free version. It actually does a lot. It ingests data from almost any source and it will push it out to almost any cloud. So it does everything I want it to do right now. They've done a good job with it, honestly.

What could be helpful is different user base authentication so then maybe we could allow different customers to point to a single appliance and they only see the backups and things that they have. That feature may actually be in there but we haven't utilized that.

So far it's been fine. It did take us a little bit of time to get it configured and set up. A lot of that was actually working with the AWS buckets and trying to reuse some of those and trying to attach those to the AltaVault, but once we got that configured the actual use of the AltaVault appliance was fairly easy.

Good. It's actually a good feature. You're able to scale with the cloud.

When we were trying to migrate it was more of a licensing issue, again because we had our license originally from SteelStore. So when it got purchased by NetApp we had to migrate that, but that was the only time we had to engage support for it.

We actually ended up having to get our account team to get us a new free license because we'd already purchased it, but it had to get brought into the NetApp portfolio and so they helped.

It was too complex. It was complicated, the solution we had before. We had multiple carriers and tapes; and the backup, we were really trying to keep that encrypted and secure. And it was just really complex.

We actually had an audit and the auditor told us that it was too complex. So we were looking at a way to simplify it and that's where AltaVault came in. It took an entire silo of complexity and simplified it to a device in the cloud.

We switched because it was easier; and the cost. It was really a special use appliance that did a very good job at what it did.

I was not actually involved. It was one of my partners. My counterpart set it up but then I did the migration between SteelStore to the AltaVault.

It wasn't as easy as I thought it was going to be. It was actually a complete rebuild, and then migrate the database. And then to get that license from our sales team. I thought it was gonna take me a couple of hours, it took me a couple of days, but it still wasn't too bad.

Like I said, we looked at SteelStore, at the time NetApp didn't have anything. We looked at IBM, kind of had a little product attached in the Spectrum Protect, but that was where we focused.

We're using AltaVault for doing cloud based backup, actually taking a lot of our backup database to the cloud. Not backing up the databases, but the repository and the catalog of our backups is out to the cloud.

Our most important criteria when selecting a vendor are functionality, reliability, and dependability. That it's actually going to work and that they're going to be around in five years. Cost and then ease of use.

I believe there's a free software version to try for 30 days with limited use. When we bought it, it was actually an appliance you had to buy, and now it's software based. So you can actually put it on any server and test it out and try it and see if it as simple or if it works as well as you want it to. We've actually deployed the virtual appliance since our first go at it, so that's what I would recommend for anybody else: try the virtual appliance and make sure they like it.

I gave it the rating I did because there's got to be room for improvement somewhere, but overall it's pretty simple. For what we use it for, we like it.

It's been able to keep us lean and mean on the storage front. I don't want to be buying many racks of storage just to put in my datacenter, when it's not really providing lots of value. I want to have all the imported data with me, thus being able to lower that storage footprint.

Being able to effectively keep the live data on-premise, or the most recent data on-premise. But I make an affordable solution, where if data is out of a certain time, it goes and leverages all the cheap storage, whether that'll be the storage grid or an S3/S3WS. It's gives me the flexibility of keeping my day to where I want it now. If I need to get the data back really quickly, I put it on the long term retention, being able to access it in the same way.

Most importantly is having that island into that datacenter, and being able to address things in the same console. Thus, it is irrelevant where it's stored.

There are some bits it could do better. With tighter integration maybe with Veeam, or something like that, it'd be really good.

It is still shipping at the moment and it's quite a bigger plane. So, if you are going to go down the physical route, I'd charge for the VA.

I would improve upon the form factor. Some of the usability stuff is good. There's some better features around that prepopulate and cash-in again, that could be improved upon, but again, minor things.

Stability is rock solid from my point of view. I've been running it now for around 18 months. No downtime, no support code was locked. That speaks for itself in my opinion.

At the moment, we're running it as a virtual appliance. There is no physical stuff on the site. It's all virtual. It seems to be doing the job well. If I need another one, I can scale it out.

I haven't use tech support.

I was sourced to go out into the market and look at what was out there. I'd been an existing NetApp customer and it made sense to look at what they had, especially now with the new versions of ONTAP and being able to literally snap mirror and snap vote stuff off into AltaVault, that was a real plus. I didn't need another piece of software to go and grab data to go put it into the cloud. Being able to manage one interface is really powerful.

We chose AltaVault, because we were really looking at our storage costs. They were always increasing each year. I don't think we've ever deleted data in our business, so every year I was going back adding more costt. I needed a solution that I could look at for over three to five years and say I'm going to put this investment in now. Also, say to management, over three to five years based on the current growth rates, and obviously leave it open for the future as well, it's going to cost you roughly this much. Because I know exactly how much it's going to cost me, I am able to charge that back into different departments, which is really good.

The initial setup took 90 minutes. It deployed on the floor and was actively being used in 90 minutes.

Up until now, it has been AWS, though we are looking at the storage grid in the future. For a backup software, we're using SnapManager with the SnapCenter, or with SnapManager 3.0, it's really good. There's no third party bits there.

We are looking looking to use Veeam in the future as a repository to leverage all their great stuff.

It's quite cost-effective.

Cloud-base will pay AWS by the minute, but then with AWS, it's an Excel-based decision. I am worried it has become more cost effective to built it yourself, so building something around a storage grid or something like that.

I'm in the middle at the minute of evaluating if it is cheaper to put on AWS or is it cheaper to go build it yourself? That's something I'm looking at.

We looked at other competitors, for example Data Domain from EMC. We didn't use it, though. Something that made the decision a wider one with AltaVault was the manageability. I didn't want another thing in the datacenter that I couldn't manage in the same way.

By using SnapManager and SnapVault, there's no additional training the team really needs to pick it up fairly well. It can all be managed easily.

Depending on where's your primary data and what you want to achieve, AltaVault's not great in all cases. In my case, it is really good. I have really long data retention periods, and I want to keep my arms around the data. Also, I want to know where it is, but at the same time, I don't want to be looking at it everyday on the datacenter. Having a solution there that can move data from on-premise into the cloud and back is a massive win.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Their reliability: We're in a storage market and a data market, the first thing is reliability. Everything that I do on top of it, I want it to work, but it has to be a really good foundation the bottom.
• Cost is obviously a factor, but for me, it's about reliability.
• I have somebody on the end of the phone. Where if I do have a problem, I can call and have good support with them? That's something that until you actually have a problem, you don't really realize its importance.

For me, it's about a company that I can work with and a company who's always innovating, not standing still. A company like that, with cost and the support, it's a great decision.

I don't actually use the solution. I plan the infrastructure so I couldn't comment on the actual use. That would require a support team to do that.

It allows us more flexibility with our backups.

Well, again, I don't know too much about what's coming up, so I couldn't really comment on that, either.

It's a strong, stable product.

Highly scalable as well. We're very flexible in how we use the product.

Again, I couldn't speak to that myself. It would have to be a technical person that would do that.

We use NetApp as a partner and consulted with their SEs and their pre-sales team to determine what would be the best solution for our organization.

For us, when selecting a vendor, what's important is the value-add they bring to the business. So not only that they're trying to sell us a product, but they're aware of what our business does and they come to us with solutions that actually are applicable to our business. That's a really important feature.

I wasn't involved in it.

Leverage the SE and the technical expertise within NetApp. They offer really great services, and they'll provide you with an honest approach to how to address your business problems.