NetApp ONTAP Reviews

It had been a successful solution for the end-users. They were very happy with the solution that was implemented as it resolved all their issues.

It helped to speed up the delivery. Earlier, if it took around 30 minutes to do a task such as copying some data or doing any content editing, post-implementation of NetApp, and improvement in our network infrastructure, overall activity time was reduced to 10 minutes.

A key challenge for our organization was to speed up the process for media files. It took a longer time to transfer or do any kind of activity on media files. Post-implementation, we were able to speed up our processes on the media files. Although the media file sizes were quite large, NetApp was able to speed up accessibility to those files.

At the time we finalized NetApp, there were a couple of things that were impacting. The size of the data was increasing very quickly, so we wanted a device that was easily expandable without much modification. NetApp fulfilled that requirement, wherein we were able to double the size of the solution without any major impact on the network.

Security played a major role in finalizing the product. The ONTAP technology was quite stringent while creating partitions and in other such scenarios so that the data is fully secured and not accessible without permission. It is also quite difficult to crack the solution. From a security point of view, NetApp was a good solution as it had an OS that was quite unique.

The stability and performance of the solution have provided optimized results as expected. 

Our upcoming investments would be prioritized around a hybrid cloud solution because we ourselves promote the cloud in the market. We are the premium service provider for AWS, so we have that inclination toward cloud computing. From the experience that we had during the pandemic, we are looking for some kind of hybrid solution for our environment.

NetApp should focus on a hybrid cloud solution because none of the media houses are opting for cloud storage. The files are quite heavy, and it becomes quite difficult to maintain them on the cloud. If NetApp can provide such technology and fill the gap of storing media files in the cloud, it would give them an advantage.

I have used this solution for three to four years.

The solution's stability is one of the most important aspects for us.

We were able to double the size of the solutions without a major impact on the network.

We had plans to increase the usage, but we have gone through downsizing in the recent past. We have not planned any expansion in the coming quarters. After that, depending on how the business is going, we might make a decision about it.

I would rate them an eight out of ten.

NetApp provided the features required within our cost limit.

We considered Dell EMC and HPE as alternatives. We chose NetApp because NetApp's primary solution is storage. That is where it has an advantage with respect to other players. Apart from that, the solution that NetApp was providing suited our environment. Its cost also worked well.

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

My use case for NetApp ONTAP is for backup purposes. I was taking a course on NetApp ONTAP through Udemy where I learned about taking backups of infrastructure services and performed practical exercises.

The best features of NetApp ONTAP include its good UI. When planning to take backups at night, the process is faster. It is best for data services and snapshot cloning experiences.

NetApp ONTAP could be improved with additional features to help handle the backup of more than 10 to 15 devices simultaneously. Multiple availability zones could be improved. The users in remote areas might have limited bandwidth compared to those in metropolitan cities. They might face challenges taking backups due to connectivity limitations.

I have used NetApp ONTAP for three months.

Stability could be improved due to downtime issues. I would rate the stability a seven out of ten.

We are an enterprise. Our clients are medium-sized companies. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

In my project, many people are using NetApp. Our storage team has 20 to 25 members.

I would rate the technical support of NetApp ONTAP an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have some experience with Veeam. When comparing it with Veeam, for backup storage capabilities, NetApp ONTAP performs better.

It is moderate.

This solution saved approximately 50% to 60% of time.

The pricing for NetApp ONTAP is moderate.

Integrating AI with NetApp ONTAP would enhance the platform, particularly for resolving queries and providing solutions more efficiently.

I would recommend NetApp ONTAP to other users as it effectively meets requirements.

I would rate NetApp ONTAP an eight out of ten.

I am working on cloud development while on contract with a big organization. We utilize NetApp extensively as part of our cloud storage strategy throughout the enterprise. We use NetApp ONTAP quite a bit in both PoC type projects and production. We are managing petabytes of information and a worldwide cloud in multiple data centers.

NetApp ONTAP enables us to deliver services to customers predictably, which is crucial in our line of business.

Implementing NetApp ONTAP is a very important part of our storage strategy. We could see the benefits of NetApp ONTAP immediately upon implementation, but all clouds essentially work the same. You charge for space, but you get over-allocation and deduplication that save space, which is how the company generates revenue.

It is hard to pinpoint which NetApp technology delivers the most value, but currently, most of our business relies on block volumes, focusing on the ability to create these volumes with features such as encryption at rest, encryption in transit, and various data organization and compression capabilities.

We have successfully implemented encryption in transit using TLS, which is a standout outcome that may not be commonly supported by competitors in the vendor space.

There are several features that I find valuable in NetApp ONTAP. Some of the technology is based on the older feature set, so there is stability which is paramount for our technology strategy. 

The ability to do online upgrades in a clustered setup is absolutely crucial, and I extensively use new features such as replication and backups for certain cloud features in the enterprise.

NetApp ONTAP has several limitations that we encounter, primarily related to large enterprise clients. They do not affect small clients that NetApp may have. While these limitations are clearly described, some issues require us to develop workarounds. Particularly for large setups, there are constraints, such as the limit of 1,000 active FlexVols per NetApp node, which affect large-scale deployments with tens or hundreds of thousands of active users, but NetApp directly works with us. We have NetApp residents who are essentially NetApp people present in our organization. We have a direct line of communication with them, and they try to implement strategies to overcome some of the deficiencies on our request. That indeed was done multiple times.

Another one is scalability. While NetApp ONTAP is generally very scalable, we encounter some scalability constraints that are particularly related to large enterprise setups rather than those faced by medium-sized clients.

NetApp ONTAP is generally very scalable, but there are some scalability constraints related to large enterprise setups.

The quality and responsiveness of support are generally good. Fundamental issues receive immediate attention. If you have real issues that affect your clients, they will look at them immediately. Resolution-wise, some issues are resolved very quickly, while updates requested by us may take longer. Some updates took more than a year for implementation.

I would rate their support an eight out of ten. I am happy with their support overall.

Positive

I have used alternatives to NetApp ONTAP during my career, including EMC as one of the notable options. EMC was the older technology during my usage. Some features of ONTAP are on par with other technologies. Other alternatives may not have the same limitations as ONTAP, but they have different limitations that NetApp does not have. 

Feature-wise, NetApp is competitive. Our organization doesn't make decisions lightly. Numerous architects did a comparison between NetApp and other systems before they even selected NetApp as a technology to go with. That happened quite a while ago even before me being on that contract. Feature-wise, they're on par with the competition.

The initial deployment with NetApp ONTAP can vary. Simple setups are easy to deploy but require specific NetApp expertise and architectural approaches. There could be problems later on with NetApp implementations if your initial features are not configured correctly. There is a difference between implementing NetApp on a small scale versus at a large scale like our organization. We process significant volumes of transactions, sometimes millions per second, so making proper architectural approaches is essential.

There is maintenance involved. It has at least three different components. The first one is the hardware maintenance, because things do not work well sometimes for a variety of reasons. Some components go bad, and we have a huge number of NetApp arrays. We have to have maintenance of the hardware done, which may not be NetApp-related at all. We have to have version upgrades. NetApp makes it somewhat easy, but some of the things have to be looked into. One specific example is that NetApp has a concept of key managers. In other words, they encrypt information at rest. However, they can use an external key manager. In other words, the client can bring their own encryption key, which is not even known to us for privacy reasons. The key is stored in an external box, and if that box is unavailable, that volume obviously becomes inactive as well. If you have inactive volumes like that, NetApp will not allow you to do upgrades. You can only do upgrades if all volumes are accessible. That is not always possible in some cases, so we have to have some special handling to do that. NetApp does work with us. They do have a strategy in some way to go around this limitation. However, it's not quite that easy. So, the software maintenance is not quite as easy to do.

There are also upgrades that relate to features. Some of those are easier to implement than the others, and some require license changes. That's where things sometimes get complicated because the user licensing scheme changes. You need to understand what the change is, how to get the new type of keys, how to install new hardware in ways that it will not conflict with the old one, when it can be done, and so on. It is sometimes not easy. Regular maintenance is fine, but upgrade-related maintenance varies, but it is no more complicated than any of its competitors, because I encountered similar issues with the competition as well.

Key challenges that NetApp technology addresses for our business include providing disk storage with a 99.999% uptime. It allows us to maintain a very high SLA, which is essential for our services, as without it, customers are unwilling to pay.

We continuously expand our use of NetApp ONTAP. For example, implementing the new TLS tunnel encryption for shared volumes has significantly enhanced our encryption capabilities without introducing complexity. It allows us to do encryption for shared volumes without implementing complicated encryption and transit technologies.

It's difficult for me to say. We have a wholesale contract with NetApp. We also have NetApp ONTAP On-Demand activation for certain things. We also have some preferential pricing for licenses. The licensing that I see here doesn't apply to other clients in the field. NetApp is expensive, but so are the competitors, making it hard to ascertain precise retail value. However, based on my perspective, NetApp pricing appears competitive.

I was not present when NetApp was selected. We consistently evaluate other offerings, but there are no indications of plans to replace NetApp ONTAP.

Overall, I would rate NetApp ONTAP an eight out of ten. While there are opportunities for improvement, they generally perform well and maintain a strong position within the market.

My use case for the solution includes both business and personal aspects. Personally, I run a lot of file and storage activities at home, managing database operations, and I prefer using NetApp as my backend storage to store data in the cloud instead of relying on third parties storage. 

For the business case at my company, we utilize it effectively, and I support it myself by troubleshooting NetApp issues. In our organization, we mostly use NetApp ONTAP. We also use some features that come with NetApp, such as Cloud Insights and Systems Manager.

NetApp ONTAP has addressed key challenges for our business, especially because our cloud organization provides technology for customers. Our clients have requested multi-protocol support over the last few years. Before NetApp ONTAP, we had services that only supported a single protocol. Now, we have a product that allows customers to launch a single service usable by multiple and different clients, rather than needing to deploy two different products. That's the main game changer for us.

NetApp ONTAP has significantly improved our customer satisfaction and enabled faster service delivery at my organization. It makes it easier to launch and scale for customers. It performs better than other storage systems we've had before, and it supports multiple protocols. Big enterprise customers want storage systems that accommodate various client machines, including Linux, Windows, or Mac. It helps ensure that users can access the same backend effortlessly. Previous services were limited to a particular technology focus, but with NetApp ONTAP, this is no longer an issue, leading to a big win for us.

In choosing NetApp over other vendors, the primary reason was its accessibility and integration capabilities. It works well across various machines, whether they are Windows, Linux, Mac OS, or different types of servers. The hybrid usage is also beneficial for backups and disaster recovery, whether on-premises or in the cloud. I utilize the SnapMirror feature for disaster recovery, and its multi-availability zone support allows customers to launch in different zones to maintain access to their data even if one goes down.

When considering the evolving cybersecurity landscape and the increase in AI, NetApp ONTAP stands out with its own security features. It offers SnapLock for extra security and integration with Active Directory for user authentication. It helps manage secure access for customers in their organization while ensuring that users can authenticate using their username and password. We have never encountered any security issues because NetApp ONTAP includes security defenses built into the service, allowing end users to secure their data effectively.

NetApp ONTAP has absolutely been a game changer for our organization. We support and use different storage services, but this is the first time we have a service and storage that supports multiple protocols, such as SMB, NFS and iSCSI. It has been very helpful, especially for big enterprise customers that want to use these protocol services. It has been a big game changer for us and a big boost over the last few years.

The best features of NetApp ONTAP that I appreciate include its security and compliance aspects. It supports Active Directory for access authentication, requiring users to be domain members authenticated by the domain administrator. There is also antivirus integration for added protection. NetApp ONTAP complies with numerous certifications, such as PCI and HIPAA, which are critical in our industry.

NetApp ONTAP supports different protocols and gives very good performance. It scales very well and can integrate with different client machines. It also works well for backup and disaster recovery.

They can make it more accessible to individuals beyond just enterprises. Many everyday users gravitate towards storage solutions such as Google Drive or OneNote, so making NetApp services more user-friendly for everyone would be beneficial.

They could focus on making it more user-friendly. Currently, many users need a certain level of NetApp knowledge to operate it effectively, often relying on command-line interfaces that demand IT or technology skills. While there is a GUI available through Systems Manager, a lot of management still occurs at the command line, so enhancing the GUI for better usability could be a key focus area.

For our next technology investments, I believe that the AI aspect will be significant. Given the current landscape, many companies are investing in artificial intelligence, and we aim to do the same. I envision having AI or some form of service integrated with our NetApp ONTAP solution in the coming months or years to facilitate easier data searches for end users.

I've been using NetApp ONTAP for three years. When we launched it in my organization, I started supporting it.

There's always room for improvement for every service. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

It scales very well for me. I always use it, and I've enjoyed using it. It has very low latency. It gives the maximum throughput possible. I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

We have 500 to 1,000 users. Our clients are small, medium, and enterprise businesses.

My experiences with NetApp's support team have always been very positive. Their engineers know their stuff and perform well, so I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Positive

When it comes to return on investment and time savings, personally, I've saved a significant amount of time because of NetApp's multi-protocol support. I don't need to set up different services for Linux and Windows. Considering this, I would give it a nine out of ten.

The price could be a little bit cheaper, but you get what you pay for. I would rate it an eight out of ten for pricing because it reflects the quality of the service offered.

We work directly with NetApp ourselves to expand and add different features. There are a lot of features that we add on top of NetApp based on our customers' requests. We talk to our customers and ask them what else they would like to see. If it is a feature demanded by multiple customers, we work with NetApp to see if such a feature can be added to the service itself.

Overall, I rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten. To elevate the solution to a ten, I believe adding AI integration would be crucial.

I have been using this solution for the past year to store our data. We are utilizing a combination of multiple instances, around 20 to 30, and configuring the storage with NetApp ONTAP. 

It functions like shared storage, the data that we use in the instances is stored with NetApp ONTAP. We have configured it as shared storage.

It's very easy to configure, and once we did that, we could use basically everything. Any amount of data can be stored without any issues. 

I did not face significant issues with reliability. It is a multi-edge deployment, so it is always operational. 

I never encountered slowdown issues. We run many instances at all times. Our customers have never reported any slowdown issues with NetApp ONTAP.

For administration, there is no user interface present for NetApp ONTAP, so I have to rely on the ONTAP CLI. 

Also, the documentation for the ONTAP CLI is not comprehensive. It provides only a few examples, which are not helpful in solving issues. More examples would make it easier for me to understand.

I have been using this solution for the past year.

I have not faced many issues with stability. Sometimes, I encounter problems taking backups. Occasionally, a few megabytes of data are missed during backup. When backing up, data coming into the snapshot is not always captured. Such issues are rare, occurring once or twice out of 40 to 50 snapshots.

This solution is flexible and elastic. Whenever I am running out of data, I am able to immediately add some terabytes, and it scales up right away. I do not spend much time adding data or storage capacities, whether upsizing or downsizing.

I am a direct customer and I'm receiving premium support. They are direct customers to AWS. We have cloud-based support. AWS may contact NETAPP directly if there are issues. Whenever I send an email, an immediate response comes from their end. It is a good feature of their service.

Neutral

I used something else related to Windows, however, I eventually migrated to NetApp ONTAP. The number of customers were growing and it became hard to manage storage, and there were limits with Microsoft. ONTAP scales well. We never face issues with performance or availability either.

The initial setup was very difficult; it required ten to 12 people to configure, making it a very large process. Migrating to NetApp ONTAP was a tough process. However, after the migration, everything went well from that day onward. It takes one to two weeks to migrate the data over to ONTAP.

Originally, we configured it first in some nonproduction environments. After that only, we took the initiative to do the production. That was after around one month. There was a full POC and a lot of research. After that, only we configure these two productions. Overall, it takes about one month's time.

Once configured, maintenance can be managed by two or three people.

Maintenance revolves around managing disk space since it is a shared storage. We have to monitor that. 

I need a dedicated team, as there is much work to do in the configuration phase. 

Pricing is confidential and handled by management, not users. 

I would rate NetApp ONTAP between seven out of ten. The documentation is very hard to read, and they do not provide good examples for consideration. 

We have multiple data centers in different countries where we need local access to shared storage and network storage. 

We have AFF platforms and FAS platforms from NetApp for either hot storage purposes or cold storage, with cold being our backups and hot being for our production applications. 

The types of storage volumes we have are for virtual machine hard disk storage. We currently are using VMware and will be switching away from that due to the Broadcom license situation, but NetApp ONTAP works very well with VMware as it is integrated effectively. We rely on it for that. 

Additionally, we use Kubernetes and have numerous applications hosted in that environment. We use multiple protocols for persistent volumes including NFS, iSCSI, and NVMe over TCP. These comprise our main use cases.

The fact that NetApp ONTAP supports NVMe over TCP is a significant advantage. This newer technology is very performant. We have faced some issues with it, not specifically due to NetApp ONTAP, but due to Linux kernel bugs which are being addressed currently. Because it's a newer protocol, there are some issues, but having access to that particular protocol with low-latency network storage is one of the best features.

Another valuable feature is the number of Ansible modules provided by NetApp. We use these to automate the setup and configuration of the NetApp ONTAP cluster and to create actual volumes. It has a REST API, which the Ansible modules likely use under the hood, but the fact that there are multiple ways to automate the storage is fantastic.

The system provides alerting for misconfigurations with links to knowledge-based articles for corrections. 

Upgrades of the NetApp ONTAP operating system can be configured for full automation, though we prefer manual control.

They could expand what is possible to do with automation as there are gaps in the Ansible module coverage they have. There is certain functionality that NetApp ONTAP offers that these modules are incapable of handling. They do have some generic Ansible modules, so you can use the module and run a CLI command with that, which allows you to accomplish everything in a way. It would be better if they had more modules tailored to specific use cases where you don't need to wrap the CLI commands, keeping with the Ansible declarative framework. It's not a major gap in functionality, however, expanding the automation capabilities they already have would be beneficial.

I've used the solution for about two years.

We haven't seen a regression. The use of the newer protocol, NVMe over TCP, has added some instability compared to using iSCSI, but there hasn't been a true regression.

The NetApp ONTAP cluster works with HA pairs of controller nodes that are paired up for redundancy purposes. 

You can expand your NetApp ONTAP cluster by adding more of these HA pairs. When we have just one HA pair in our cluster, NVMe over TCP works flawlessly with our Kubernetes Linux volumes. 

However, when we have multiple HA pairs in the NetApp ONTAP cluster, we start seeing issues with attaching volumes to Kubernetes nodes and mounting them into Kubernetes pods. This seems to be related to an issue in the Linux kernel with the handoff between different HA pairs.

The quality of support is very good, though it varies depending on who is handling the issue. The response times are fast, however, with some of the bigger issues, such as the NVMe over TCP and Linux kernel problem, more effort was required. 

When we reached out, they remained continually engaged, and while we had to push them to reach out to Linux distribution providers such as Canonical for Ubuntu, once they started the engagement, everything proceeded smoothly. 

Overall, there are no substantial complaints with the support.

We haven't used another SAN or NAS system, as NetApp is the only one we've used in that category. 

However, we have used network storage in the form of GlusterFS, an open-source storage platform that relies on commodity hardware. With GlusterFS, multiple servers can be used as nodes or peers in a Gluster cluster. We used the free community version for years and encountered regular bugs that impacted performance. These bugs were not always fixed quickly. 

We also experienced compatibility issues between certain versions of the Linux kernel and Gluster. The performance was slower, partly due to the nature of the Gluster protocol being more NAS-oriented. 

With NetApp ONTAP, we can use SAN protocols that are more performant due to their block-level nature. The biggest gap with Gluster, aside from performance, was the lack of paid support, which is included with NetApp ONTAP and has proven invaluable.

The initial setup was straightforward. The main challenge was learning their concepts and understanding the different components needed within NetApp ONTAP to enable applications to access data. This included networking setup, configuring disks in the platform, and setting up storage virtual machines to separate permissions and group different use cases. We were operational within three months.

The pricing is high. That said, we received favorable pricing at Intel due to the company's large NetApp ONTAP deployment across different organizations. While we're not in the IT department (we're in a shadow IT team), we benefit from the bulk pricing deals. 

Despite this, it remains expensive. A significant advantage is that hardware purchases include support for multiple years, eliminating the need for annual support agreement renewals. 

When considering the included support, technology upgrades, and extensive platform testing, the enterprise-level pricing provides considerable peace of mind.

Based on comparison with other enterprise companies we've received support from, NetApp ONTAP performs better than others. While they sometimes require additional pushing, they deserve a rating of nine out of ten. 

We manage our data systems with NetApp ONTAP through either the command-line interface or the graphical user interface.

We implemented ONTAP because it provides a unified management interface for all storage, simplifying administration by using the same language for both SAN and NAS environments.

NetApp ONTAP is user-friendly.

The auto-completion feature now simplifies ONTAP management by streamlining command-line operations. When entering commands via the CLI, auto-completion suggests relevant options, improving efficiency and reducing errors. This enhanced functionality has proven effective in managing various storage environments, consistently delivering the expected performance.

We have tested ONTAP in several environments, and its performance has met our expectations.

ONTAP reduces human error by providing helpful auto-completion features, eliminating the need to memorize all commands.

ONTAP helps improve our cost savings because NetApp products are competitively priced compared to IBM and Dell.

We realized the benefits of ONTAP immediately.

Our organization is short-staffed, and ONTAP's ease of storage management is well-suited to our small team.

ONTAP's GUI does not encompass all the features available in the CLI. Some functions can only be executed through the CLI.

I have been using NetApp ONTAP for about eight years.

I would rate the stability of ONTAP eight and a half out of ten. There are bugs from time to time, especially in new versions. If we upgrade, there might be issues with some features, but it is generally stable.

Our previous product faced scalability limitations requiring a complete replacement. However, recent systems, particularly the new NetApp systems, demonstrate significantly improved scalability compared to their predecessors.

The technical support is good.

Positive

Our company used various storage solutions from vendors like Dell, IBM, and Hitachi. However, NetApp ONTAP stands out due to its consistent core functionality, even with feature updates, maintaining simplicity compared to other complex solutions.

The complexity and duration of a NetApp ONTAP deployment depend significantly on the chosen approach. Building a new ONTAP environment from scratch typically takes around two weeks, while migrating an existing storage infrastructure from another vendor to ONTAP can increase the deployment time to two months due to the added complexities of data transfer, compatibility considerations, and potential application downtime.

In my experience of almost 25 years, ONTAP was less time-consuming than most other products I've worked with.

NetApp ONTAP is moderately priced. The tag price is more competitive for the value we get.

I would rate NetApp ONTAP nine out of ten.

We have NetApp ONTAP deployed in multiple locations with 2,500 users.

NetApp ONTAP requires maintenance for upgrades, adding features, and replacing failed disks.

I will recommend ONTAP. It is advisable to consider a proof of concept.

Like NetApp Private Storage, I use the solution for file storage and data source. We use it daily when managing our storage and NetApp's operating system. We log in to it to check the status of the storage. We use it to store all our assets, like the web app, web applications, database applications, Oracle and SQL databases, and VMD.

SnapMirror is good for disaster recovery. We use that currently. Their SAN storage is great. We manage our storage via SAN. We do not currently use NAS because we still use Windows File Servers.

NetApp ONTAP has similar areas of improvement as NetApp Private Storage regarding decreasing the error rate, improving the GUI, technical support and stability, and reducing the price.

I have been using NetApp ONTAP for five years.

I rate the solution's stability a six out of ten. Though NetApp should run 24x7, 365 days a year, we have had five downtimes in a year.

NetApp ONTAP is scalable. They have two types of scalability, "scale up" and "scale out." With "scale up," you can get up to petabytes of data if you have the money to buy those servers and add them to the system. And "scale out" also, you can buy additional controllers, up to 12 nodes, which is pretty good when you are a big company. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

NetApp is one of our organization's main storage systems. Every application is scattered on all of our NetApp devices. Applications won't run without it because they need to pull data from NetApp ONTAP.

I have used Synology and HP before. My current company uses NetApp ONTAP, though I learned to use NetApp at my last job.

I rate the initial setup an eight or nine out of ten because it was easy. Maybe it was easy because I worked as a NetApp engineer before, so I know how to do it properly. It's easy because I used to deploy a NetApp product four times a month in my previous company. My organization deploys the product to end users, companies that buy the solution from us. Most recently, it took us a day to deploy this solution. Steps involved in deploying the solution included rock and stock, cabling zoning, and then provisioning of storage to the data stores.

We needed two people to deploy the solution, with one person as an assistant. The assistant will come from the vendor, who sometimes sends two people for deployment. The vendor asks for all the needed details before they go there, and if provided already, it will be easy from there because we'll just input everything. Rock and stock only take 20 minutes, and connecting cables takes 30 minutes.

I am the only storage engineer maintaining the solution in our company for now. My colleague also checks when I'm not on duty, and they need to check when the monitoring team provides information that some of our LUNs or volumes are highly utilized already. Depending on the ship, one expert can do it for the whole company.

The solution is quite pricey compared to other solutions. Additional costs exist if you want a license for a feature like SnapMirror. Other vendors do not do that anymore. When you buy their storage, it comes with these features, so this is a problem with NetApp because you need to buy everything before you can use it.

ONTAP is the operating system that comes with NetApp, and ONTAP is installed on the hardware they provide.

Don't use versions 9.8 to 9.11. Those versions have everything removed. They made the administrators' lives harder when they removed some of the functionalities in the GUI, the dashboard. Everything was good when we were using ONTAP clusters 9.0 to 9.7. You could click and do whatever you wanted there. For example, you could add ECB. When the higher version came out, 9.8, they removed a lot. You then needed to research how to do it via CLI. You needed to be an expert to do whatever you wanted to do. I have not seen 9.11 yet, but I hope they have fixed the GUI already. I rate the solution between an eight out of ten because of the price and the downtime.