NetApp FAS Series Reviews

We offer the solution to customers with unified storage without any gateway.

Snapshot, deduplication, and compression features are valuable. I also like the product’s OS. The product is the most reliable because it is based on Linux.

NetApp needs to put its OS on a microchip rather than on disks. The product uses flash storage for caches. The solution could improve the cache memory in storage. Though the storage is being used for backups and archival, there is still room for improvement in the increment of cache memory and storage.

I have been using the solution for almost ten years. We are proposing the FAS2700 series to our customers.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight or nine out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. We have almost 100 users in Pakistan. Our customers are medium and enterprise-level businesses.

We have a team of certified NetApp engineers. We are also very comfortable with the technical team.

Positive

The initial setup was fine. I rate the ease of setup an eight or nine out of ten. It took us one or two days to deploy the solution.

We usually get a scope of work from the customer before deploying the solution. We then plan everything and design the storage according to the scope of work.

I rate the solution’s pricing seven or eight out of ten. If we want a ransomware solution with the product or other extended features, we need to pay an extra cost. That’s why there are different licensing costs for the product.

Customers who want large-scale files can afford the solution. The product is very good for archival purposes and to protect large files. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

My use case for the NetApp FAS Series is that it's a repository for the VM (virtual machine) and CIFS (common internet file system) share, or network share.

The NetApp FAS Series has helped simplify our infrastructure. There were times it also helped simplify our operations. 

The NetApp FAS Series is useful, because it makes restoring a single file easy, but after that, nothing more. It's just a repository of the virtual machine, so I could use it or another solution, but it's reliable, e.g. it has two nodes with high availability, so this is the reason we choose to use this solution.

This solution also accelerates virtualization, but not so much, because it's not an all-flash solution. The FAS2620 is a traditional solution with some cache, so it's not so fast, but it's enough for my company. AFF is all-flash, but this solution: FAS, is not all-flash, but people like it.

The NetApp FAS Series is not as high-performing for our business critical applications, because it's not an all-flash solution. It's also not as fast, so its speed needs improvement, but this could only be done if it's an all-flash solution.

I've been using the NetApp FAS Series for eight years: four years for the first installation, then another four years for the second installation.

The NetApp FAS Series has good stability. I never had any issues with it, so I chose it for the second time.

My impression on the scalability of the NetApp FAS Series is that it's good, but my usage is just below 50%, so scalability is not an issue for me.

I've used a different NetApp solution, but I cannot remember the exact type of storage. The reasons I switched to the NetApp FAS Series is because I already knew the product. Another reason for choosing this solution is its reliability. I never had an issue with it in the eight years I've been using it.

The initial setup for this solution was easy. Planning took one day and the setup took two hours.

We don't use the cloud backup solution of the NetApp FAS Series. We just use it in a very basic way, and nothing more than a repository for the VM and CIFS.

I do the tuning and the troubleshooting for this solution myself.  I'm the only one managing it, e.g. the other members of the IT team are not involved in it, so it's hard to say if it does reduce IT support costs.

We have not used the NetApp FAS Series in supporting data analytics, AI, machine learning, SAP, and Oracle workloads, nor did we use it to support any asynchronous replication for disaster recovery with MetroCluster.

I never had an issue with this solution, so I never used their technical support.

I'm rating the NetApp FAS Series a nine out of ten for availability and reliability.

Clients like the fact that FAS systems can boot from SAN and Boot volumes.

The strong point is that our clients like this are RAID DP (Dual Priority). SnapMirror and MetroCluster features are also very useful for DC, DR solutions.

The biggest issue we face is parts delivery. There's no local warehouse in Myanmar, so if a customer encounters a technical problem like hardware failure issue, they have to wait a long time for replacement parts.

I have been working with it for more than five to seven years. 

I would rate the stability of the product an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is pretty easy to scale. It's good for medium-sized enterprises and also for larger enterprises.

The setup is quite simple. It doesn't take a lot of time. It is quite easy and fast.  The exception might be creating key volumes, which can vary depending on the specific infrastructure involved. Some configurations might necessitate longer key volume creation times.

It's not the cheapest, but it's not the most expensive either. It's a fair price. However, the price could be more flexible for the clients.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. It is one of the good products in the market. 

The customers also use a lot of EMC and HPE as well. In the current situation, we need to choose products with the best support, like EMC, with its rapid technical support response.

The NetApp service center in Myanmar here isn't the fastest at deliveries. The service center engineers are good, but it's not 100% reliable for support. Sometimes, there are delays that don't allow us to make the delivery on time, unlike with other vendors. So, the customers need to wait. 

We use it for storing our database data and for our virtual machines.

The best feature is its ONTAP product line for Ransomware protection. Another benefit is the hybrid and unified model. It also has features for file storage and block storage.

I was a little skeptical about the model. I wonder why the replication is included in the ONTAP One bundle when some customers may not require additional features. It should ideally be part of the ONTAP base bundle, even if there's a slight price increase.

I have been working with this solution for approximately two years now.

The solution is stable. We've had no issues with it.

The tool is scalable and meets our requirements for TVs. It handles beta bytes well. We are happy with its scalability.

The technical support and the supporting partner are great.

Positive

I work with HPE and Huawei OceanStor, too. HPE is great, but I'm not satisfied with Huawei OceanStor. I'm comfortable with HPE and NetApp FAS Series.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is a SaaS solution. and very easy to maintain. It’s not a high-maintenance device. It runs smoothly. We use it within our university and have up to a hundred concurrent user sessions. 

The deployment was handled by the partner from whom we made the purchase.

The product is on the expensive side, but the feature set is excellent.

I recommend the solution. Overall, I rate it a perfect ten because I haven’t encountered any issues since I’ve started using it.

My customers use the solution for production servers, databases, and Oracle applications. I did not deploy Oracle. I deal with only the storage and server side of the product.

Adaptive balancing is a valuable feature. Whenever an application needs more IOPS, it will automatically be reserved for higher-performance storage like SSDs or SaaS-based hard disks.

The product should improve its user experience. The console should enable easy mapping to the storage volume and the server.

I have been using the solution for four years. I am still supporting my customers with the solution.

The tool is stable. The only problem we normally face is hard disk failure. However, since the product alerts the spare and redundancy, it is easy to manage. We also get support.

The product is scalable. Five or six of our customers are using the solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It takes one to one and a half hours to deploy the solution, depending on whether new firmware is available whenever it is connected to the Internet.

To deploy the solution, we need connectivity. The IP addresses should be available before we do the configuration. We need one engineer to deploy and maintain the tool.

The solution’s cost is reasonable. However, the support cost is very high. Our customers ask for more discounts.

I handle many storages. NetApp FAS Series is recommended because of its stability, scalability, and easy administration.

Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We use it for the production system with high workload.

NetApp is the best solution because of price and production. It offers data compression and people management.

Installation of the additional switches and ETP could be improved.

I have been using the NetApp FAS Series for three or four years.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

4,000-5,000 endpoints are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup takes an hour to complete. If we install simple storage, we can install it by ourselves.

NetApp is the economy or the physical port.

We have two engineers that manage storage and backup. We search devices with easy management. It has a very simple integration.

If you want high performance on the Domino's system, please read the conclusion.

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

The input and output per second performance are satisfactory.

The solution can improve on the replication features.

I have used NetApp FAS Series within the past 12 months.

The technical support is satisfactory. They need to invest more into the service.

We work with Dell EMC and Huawei.

I recommend NetApp on top of the Dell EMC since it's less complex.

The initial setup is not that complex compared to the other vendor. It's in the same level of complexity.

When we need to implement a less expensive solution we use Huawei. NetApp FAS Series is a little bit expensive compared to the average of the market.

I rate NetApp FAS Series a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for keeping our information reliable. In our case specifically, here at the operations location, we've got a MetroCluster for redundancy.

For us, the greatest aspect of the solution is the fact that it just runs. It is amazingly resilient. That's very important to us, because we are basically, with some exceptions, have a 24/7 operation. 

The newer features will be able to do things without interrupting the user experience, such as moving volumes on the fly, as well as adding and removing nodes to the clusters. That general set of features is pretty important to us.

The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth. I've actually spoken to NetApp about that. I understand from a little bit of my research that they do have another product out. They've renamed it. I don't know how much they've changed it. I don't know if they have made that a better fitting piece or if it's just got a different name.

I still have not moved to their most recent version. I believe they have incorporated several updates that I haven't had experience with yet. I'd hate to say, "Oh, we should put it that in there," and it's already there.

We have different geographical locations. The different locations probably would have a different timeline in terms of when they started using the solution. The location I am sitting at is an operations-based charter for our location and we have had the FAS type filer for probably 12 years or so.

The solution is very stable. It's quite reliable. We have it going 24/7. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches, at least not that I have experienced. It's good.

Scalability is not something that I would have much experience in from this location. We're a smaller site with about 1500 users. It's not something that has to be extremely scalable at our location. 

From talking to my coworkers at the larger locations, I believe that NetApp has become more scalable than they have been in the past, so they're going the right direction.

The solution's technical support is outstanding. We're more than satisfied with their level of service.

In terms of the initial setup, the migration of the MetroCluster, in particular, is more complex. 

I handle the management and maintenance of the solution myself, unless I need the assistance of a consultant.

We had a consultant come in and help us when we went from the non-clustered MetroCluster to the clustered MetroCluster for the different versions. That was a bit more than I wanted to tackle. I brought in the NetApp consultant to do that. I would say it was more complex than straightforward overall. The consultant even noted that when he was here that this is probably not something that, as a customer, he'd want to do on his own.

The consultant was excellent. He laid out a very clear roadmap of what we were going to do and broke it into three parts so that we didn't have too much on our plates and we could make adjustments in between each part. In the end, it was pretty smooth.

We haven't really done anything with the leasing options that they have recently come out with. We have instead outright purchased the equipment and all of the software that we use from them. 

It doesn't seem out of the normal range for other vendors. 

I don't really have a big pro or con stance on the pricing aspect of the solution.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with NetApp.

The FAS Series itself is not as complex as a MetroCluster configuration of the FAS. I would say if you're doing the MetroCluster configuration, it's worth it to get a consultant to assist. Almost every time that I have used a consultant, I have been very glad that I made the decision to hire them. I've done the incremental migrations on my own without difficulty, however, the big changes from platform to platform in particular, and from the non-clustered on tap software version to the clustered on tap software version are more difficult to perform. It's worthwhile to get consultants in those instances.

The single FAS setup, I would say, the first time I did it, was probably the biggest learning curve. Regardless of the vendor, I would probably recommend having a consultant come in for the first time you're learning all the ins and outs of the solution. After that, the migration for the individual FAS and non MetroCluster FAS seems to be very manageable if you've got a certain level of experience. If storage is kind of an extra task for you versus your primary task, you're probably going to want to pull in a consultant regardless.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.