NetApp FAS Series Reviews

We sold a very big solution this month. We sold two AFF 1K, A1K, and R2 with high availability with ONTAP on-premises to a large financial company. 

We are now working on an upgrade for another company. We are working on an upgrade to NetApp FAS Series 9150. They have a fiber channel MetroCluster, so they cannot move to an IP MetroCluster.

It helps us meet all customer requirements. Customers have been using NetApp for many years. They are very satisfied with NetApp and continue to use NetApp and upgrade to new solutions. They are very comfortable with the technology.

At this moment, autonomous ransomware protection is the key feature. Artificial intelligence, deduplication, and optimization are valuable. The AFF C-Series solutions that NetApp offers are great. I have sold a lot of AFF C-Series solutions because the cost of the disks is cheaper.

The adoption of the cloud in Argentina is very slow. Customers do not move most of their applications to the cloud. Moving applications is a simple task, but the cost is a concern in Argentina. There is an opportunity there for NetApp with Cloud Volumes ONTAP.

I have known NetApp for twenty years. I started working with NetApp in 2007 and continue to this day.

I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

It is a little complex. It is not the complexity of the product; it is the complexity because of the money.

We sold our own professional services. We have a professional engineer who installs and trains the customer, and we install the product. The satisfaction with our solution engineering is the best. We provide our own services, so the customer is happy with the service we provide them.

Customers always consider all companies and most of the business decisions are based on the global price at the end of the day. The competition offers similar solutions, but they are not the same solution. At the end of the day, the customer chooses the cheaper solution in most cases.

When the customer needs a NAS solution, NetApp is the first vendor they think of. In Argentina, most customers use SAN solutions, and for SAN solutions, they think of EMC, HPE, and IBM. Now, with the ASA solutions, NetApp is considered but not like with NAS solutions.

For me, it is a ten out of ten.

We use the solution to store all kinds of data. It's an efficient way to store data in a centralized place instead of trying to store it in individual locations.

The solution's most valuable feature is its absolute reliability. We have used a MetroCluster setup that duplicates all data and system pieces, ensuring absolute redundancy.

The solution’s pricing is expensive.

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for 15 years.

The initial setup of NetApp FAS Series is not very easy. The last time we did an upgrade, it took around three days.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven out of ten.

NetApp FAS Series is a reasonably high-priced solution, partially because we select the configuration that duplicates the entire system. However, our management decided that it was worth the cost.

The two biggest things we look at are the solution's reliability and the support of the vendor. Excellent technical support and very good reliability are the solution's primary focuses.

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

We have a variety of things. We have, like, user home drives. We have just a lot of human-managed unstructured data. We also have a data store for an AWS system, which is an automated workflow system. We store millions, if not actually billions of images. We've got stuff all over the place, but we also host storage for Linux and Unix servers that have NFS mounts for multiple applications. So it's a hodgepodge of a lot of different things.

A lot of it is just the ability to dedupe the data and compress the data because we had some users that are trying to move out into the cloud, into AWS and Azure, and they're starting to realize that their data footprint out there, say in S3, for example, is much greater because it doesn't have the native ability to compress and dedupe data like NetApp does. NetApp is very efficient. For the most part, we love NetApp.

The SnapMirror is a good tool because, as long as you're going NetApp to NetApp, it's ultimately the fastest way to move data. We replicate everything to another site for disaster recovery. 

We like the SnapMirror technology or Snapshot technology that allows us to recover directly off the NAS rather than backing it up to a secondary device. 

Just the ease of management, and it's very highly scalable. We've got one cluster that has about one and a quarter petabytes of data, and then we replicate that to an off-site. So altogether, we've got over three petabytes of data. And if it wasn't compressed and deduped like it is, we probably have more like eight or nine petabytes of data. So it does a really good job with that.

AFF is obviously the faster model because our AFFs are all flash, and they're a lot faster.

There is an area of improvement in support. So when we do have a problem, we always want it resolved right away, and sometimes it takes a few days to resolve things.

So, the response time could be a bit faster.

We have a long-running history with the NetApp FAS. I started in 2006. 

There are rarely any issues related to lagging, crashing, or downtime. Most of the time, there might be performance issues, but more often than not, these are related to factors external to our systems, such as network issues. 

From a pure reliability standpoint, these systems can remain operational for extended periods. I recall instances where they've been up for about a year and a half without requiring a reboot.

We could potentially scale up to 52 nodes. However, our most extensive deployment right now consists of 6 nodes.

For the most part, the customer support is pretty good. When compared to other vendors, we have frustrations now and again. However, that's just because a lot of their support model has moved overseas, and so it's a different experience.

Thecustomer service and support are decent, but there is room for improvement. 

Neutral

At the filer level, we began with NetApp and FAS. When I joined in 2006, we were already using FAS. Around 2011, we started incorporating the AFS or all-flash systems.

As long as you're following a documented process, the initial setup is pretty straightforward, but there are a lot of steps. There are multiple things you have to do – setting up SnapMirror, configuring schedules, setting up snapshots and their schedules, and establishing all the mirroring required for disaster recovery. 

So there's a significant number of steps, but I wouldn't say it's overly complicated.

We did it where we set our own up. And then lately, because our team has shrunk, but our storage hasn't, we usually have our third-party vendor come in. 

As part of the procurement process, we select to have them do professional services that come up and do our installation. Or we'll do a hybrid, like the last one we just did, where they did all the on-site work and then got to a point where it was turned over to us to administer, like all the fine-tuning.

We have a hybrid setup. Some clusters are in our data center, while others are in both Azure and AWS. We've also deployed the newer FSx systems in AWS due to cost considerations. Our internal customers are looking for more cheaper storage, and FSx fits that bill better than CVO.

We deploy systems on an as-needed basis. Our big clusters, ranging from about a petabyte to a petabyte and a half, can take a couple of months from receiving the equipment to completing the process. Most of that time is spent replicating data. However, if we're adding to an existing cluster, that's a more seamless process and can be done in around three weeks.

Our team handled the deployment. We have a group of four individuals responsible for handling these deployments.

There's occasional maintenance. An interesting aspect is that our Windows team conducts monthly patching. As for us, we mostly focus on code releases. 

NetApp has been providing around two code releases annually for many years. We tend to do a major code release once a year, which is quite significant given the numerous customers on our clusters. The actual upgrade process, handled by us, takes around three and a half hours for the largest setup with multiple virtuals.

The pricing ultimately depends on the capacity and the controller. It varies. We have systems that cost around 50,000 for the lease term, while others range into the million-dollar territory. It all hinges on the capacity and the controller specifications you opt for.

I am a NetApp administrator. We are looking for a data classification and data governance tool, and we've already got some in-house, but we're just looking at multiple products. So I'm literally just doing research.

However, we do have a vendor, and they are going to put together a demo for us.

We support AFF NetApp. So AFF and SaaS systems. And we also have CIFS, and we do have a little bit of FAS and AWS. So we're a NetApp shop.

Make sure you undergo some training before diving in, as it's a lot different experience than just managing a Windows server. Windows servers are pretty intuitive and easy to manage. 

NetApp systems are somewhat more complex, though not excessively so. If you're transitioning from a Windows server environment to NetApp, get training or education; otherwise, you might struggle with this solution.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. When other service providers attempt to sell us products during proof-of-concept trials, they usually don't measure up.

We use it for VMware ESXi, CEFS for shared user storage, and we use it for backup of all of these.

NetApp significantly improved our data management. The deduplication and compression give us more possibilities. We have some disk databases, and this model gives us the ability to improve disk space utilization.

At the moment, we use NetApp SnapMirror to replicate data to another filer at an offsite location for backup. So, I like this feature. 

The unified storage is a good thing for us because it simplifies administration. It offers the ability to manage different protocols on the same device. We can manage everything through the same interface, and we have a good experience with this at the moment.

We have some experience with older equipment end-of-life. For example, when warranty support stops or updates stop – it can be frustrating. 

Not all clients can buy a new filer every year or two, and NetApp ending support a bit quickly can be a concern.

Moreover, we've looked at new models and performed some price comparisons. There doesn't seem to be a large difference in price between different models within the FAS series. It would be good if there was a larger price variance between models.

I have three to four years of experience with this product.

We have one FAS now, and we want to buy another. We're looking at the models AFF A400 and A150.

We have a FAS and an AFF. We want to change this configuration.

The product does improve our performance. It is scalable enough.  

For scalability, we've found that even if you have a three-year-old service... the way NetApp works, we must buy new equipment every five or six years. 

It's as if there's planned obsolescence... we don't have the option to upgrade the solution over a long period. 

So, for scalability, I'd give it an eight out of ten. There was one instance where we needed to add disks, but the filer was full. We ran out of space to physically add them.

We had to buy extra equipment to support adding more disks to the filer when it reached maximum capacity.

We have used Synology storage. And we have some Dell equipment, but we don't use those the same way as a FAS – they are just for optional features. 

We did research a while ago, and found that the best solutions at the time were EMC and NetApp. We saw some Dell options, but EMC and NetApp were superior based on our research. That's how we decided to try NetApp.

For installation, we are usually accompanied by a specialist, so we don't experience difficulties in that area.

We actually have partners who assist us with the installation process.

Generally, maintenance is easy. We have some challenges with backup right now. Currently, we talk a lot about ransomware protection. We want to secure ourselves against this. With our current model, the FAS2200, we cannot upgrade to get the latest security features because we have an older filer replicating it.

This blocks us from obtaining those new protections against ransomware. So, our only choice is to replace the hardware and buy a new filer. This is a difficulty for us at the moment.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

We have a contract and pay a one-time purchase price. We're currently evaluating the AFF A150... that's approximately (FRF)106,164. 

I would recommend using this product. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The new FAS series is a good fit for some customers. We have good performance and capacity, even though it is full flash.

Once, I've been in a program, but they stopped supporting protocols like HTTP, STP, and that kind of stuff. All of the DIP supports at the beginning were kind of support when it was just Python and just five storage. And it happened a few times that the customer required the STP and HTTP protocol for storage. And I was surprised I couldn't do it anymore with NetApp. So, it would be beneficial for them to support both kinds of protocols.

The only little black points that I would put on top of NetApp FAS Series.

There is room for improvement in deployment and configuration processes. The thing with ONTAP is that we have a lot of layers, from the raw disks to the volumes we present to servers and configure. There are quite a lot of things to configure. Probably NetApp should ease the way to install that.

In NetApp products, such as ONTAP and FAS, a solid understanding of storage is still necessary to handle configurations in larger systems. It's not the same with Pure Storage or  Huawei. Even someone less familiar with storage could manage it, making it more accessible.

I have been working with the FAS Series for years. I started with NetApp in 2001. 

At that time, there was no SAN on the NetApp products. Moreover, I have certification in different versions. 

I am satisfied with the performance.

We have lots of competitors, so I have to address the storage needs of our prospects and customers. And while sometimes we are not chosen by NetApp. 

So if we want to try to get the deal when someone else is answering with NetApp, I have to go with WAP, potentially Huawei, and then sometimes Pure Storage. Most of the time, if I don't sell some NetApp, it's Huawei.

Huawei is a little bit easier to use than NetApp. Then it can be really very aggressive about the costs. So sometimes we have some customers that really don't look so much at the technical points and the performance or the function generality and want some cost. So, sometimes, it's a bit easier with NetApp.

Then, we offer solutions with business continuity similar to what Huawei provides—network clusters and related solutions, making the offerings closely aligned.

If I compare it to new storage vendors like Pure Storage, Pure Storage is just on pure under Flash array; it's just SAN. So, it's easy to deploy SAN on just the SAN environment. 

NetApp is a little bit easier to install and deploy than, for example, Huawei storage, Dorado, and stuff like that. That's the same kind of deployment tools. Very easy, very fast, like Pure Storage.

This is because NetApp has developed its deployment tools to be very easy to use, similar to those of Pure Storage, a newer storage vendor.

With the possibilities of making some DNS continuity into the cloud and stuff like that, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I provide NetApp FAS Series to my customers. Currently, I have installed the solution for a couple of broadcast customers or TV channels. Since TV channels are 24/7 on air, redundancy, availability, and stability are very important. We are a system integrator company, and for TV channels, cloud operations, ingest operations, live editing, performance, and stability are very important.

The most valuable feature of the NetApp FAS Series is its stability. We had a system installed five years ago, and we never touched it. It is very stable, and we never met with any performance issues. Also, the solution's management and administrative interfaces are very useful and user-friendly. The solution's technical support is very good in Turkey.

NetApp FAS Series should introduce an FTP application for the broadcast and post-production market. NetApp's older version had FTP, but they removed it. Some customers need to use external FTP servers, and some low-cost storage solutions have a built-in FTP. A lot of automation systems still use FTP for middle-class customers.

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for five years.

Three years ago, NetApp had an office in Turkey. They decided to move their office to a distributor a couple of years ago. The distributor hired the same NetApp employees for technical support and sales.

Now they have enough experience for support, and the current NetApp distributor keeps very high spare parts in stock. They provide 24/7 technical support, which is very important for our customers.

Positive

When you compare the price and performance, it is better than EMC Isilon. Performance-wise, EMC Isilon is better than NetApp FAS Series. So if a customer has enough budget and wants better performance, I will offer EMC Isilon.

The structure of both solutions is a bit different. NetApp FAS Series is a mix of scale-up and scale-out, but EMC Isilon has only scale-out. I offer EMC Isilon for some projects, and for others, I offer the NetApp FAS Series. However, most of the time, I use NetApp because Turkey is a price-sensitive country. So most of the time, NetApp FAS Series' price and performance are better than EMC Isilon.

The NetApp FAS Series is more scalable than EMC Isilon because it can scale horizontally and vertically, while EMC Isilon can only expand horizontally. And every time you need to buy a controller with a disc. For NetApp FAS Series, you can scale up capacity if you don't need more performance. EMC Isilon provides capacity and performance, but if you don't need more performance, you don't need to pay more.

The pricing of NetApp FAS Series is reasonable for its performance. If the customer just needs a solution for archive storage, NetApp becomes expensive because the customer doesn't need so much performance for archive storage. For such requirements, we can offer other local storage solutions to customers. It actually depends on the customer's budget.

I always get the bundle price, and I don't buy separate licenses because they have some bundle packages. I don't have separate license pricing.

I recommend NetApp FAS Series for users who need high performance and capacity because of its price, performance, and stability. I recommend NetApp FAS Series for Turkey because of its good technical support in Turkey. The support team provides spare parts for big cities like Istanbul and Ankara in four hours.

Overall, I rate NetApp FAS Series a nine out of ten.

I used the solution in our company to check Bash shell, specifically from when my organization started to function. For managing patches, the best storage my company prefers is NetApp FAS Series.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that the tool is good and serves as a relevant product at a global market level. My company receives good support for the tool, and the solution also offers many local support engineers.

The high cost of the product is an area of concern, so from an improvement perspective, the tool needs to be made cheaper.

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for seven to eight years. My company currently uses NetApp E-Series E5600. The tool was purchased in 2015 and is used in our company's data center.

It is a scalable solution.

My company had around 3,000 users of the solution.

The technical support offered for the solution is very ordinary and usual, meaning it is not very good.

Currently, my company has moved from NetApp FAS Series to a solution from Dell.

The product's initial setup phase was not complex. If you have knowledge or technical know-how, then everything is easy with the deployment and installation part. The tool offers an easy setup phase.

The steps to deploy the product depend on the requirements of the organization. I always recommend Dell EMC and IBM over NetApp FAS Series. In general, NetApp FAS Series is a very good product. Nowadays, NetApp has many new features, owing to which customers have started choosing NetApp to get access to its new features and the new architecture that is launched and available in the tool.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The setup phase of the tool is good since there is no need for a network change when shifting from NetApp FAS Series to Dell.

The price of NetApp FAS Series is the same as Dell's cost, so I don't think there are any comparable elements in the pricing part.

The tool is expensive.

The solution's areas, like NFS and SSD, were useful for storage and management in our organization.

Only recently did my organization use Dell's data backup solution. Also, the recovery part was managed by Dell's software along with the backup area.

The integration capabilities of the product are good and easy to use.

There are no challenges in the product, and everything is normal when it comes to NetApp FAS Series.

In terms of performance improvement, the perfect architecture that the tool provides is good.

There are a number of benefits that are offered not only by NetApp but all the other types of storage products in the market. Organizations should use storage products like NetApp, Dell, IBM, Huawei, or Hitachi for data security safety. For good performance, there is a need to use some storage device.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

The product is user-friendly and helps to evaluate the performance of each node. It ensures that if one node encounters an issue, the system can immediately redistribute the workload without interruptions. This setup provides uninterrupted operation for our systems. The high throughput, averaging 1.5 gigabits per second, also ensures that users can connect and work without encountering issues.

NetApp FAS Series follows a portfolio-based security system that allows us to manage folders and specify which files can be uploaded. For example, we can configure folders to only accept file types like MP3, MP4, or MKV. This ensures that only permitted file types are uploaded to the designated folders, enhancing our security measures.

The product should include an audit log feature. 

I have been using the product for 15 years. 

Upgrading the data size is easy with the product. My company has 300 users. 

We open a case whenever we encounter issues. 

Positive

NetApp FAS Series' pricing is competitive. 

The product can be integrated with the cloud. It's compatible with various cloud storage layers like Amazon S3. Whether you're working with Amazon or Azure, it supports cloud connectivity. You can configure parameters so that data not accessed for over one month can be automatically moved to the cloud.

We manage our systems separately. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.