NetApp ONTAP Reviews

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 are a manufacturing company with a mixture of physical systems located at manufacturing plants worldwide. We primarily have a presence in AWS for cloud regions where we utilize and integrate NetApp ONTAP.

The key reason for implementing NetApp ONTAP was full integration globally and cloud connectivity. Prior to moving to NetApp ONTAP, we were all on-prem. With NetApp ONTAP, we have seamless integration with the cloud regions globally.

We were previously struggling internally for DR purposes. We used to replicate data between internal physical locations. With cloud connectivity and seamless connection from on-prem to the cloud utilizing NetApp ONTAP, DR is certainly one of the big challenges that we closed.

The single management plane in NetApp ONTAP, with BlueXP and Cloud Insights, is valuable. It allows us to see globally all physical and cloud-hosted systems within one management plane, which is a big plus.

NetApp ONTAP has been easy to use. Compared to our previous Dell products, implementing and integrating NetApp ONTAP has been pretty seamless and relatively easy.

The performance has been very good. As a manufacturing company, we have applications that write literally millions of files to our storage solutions. The capability to provide fast response time has been a big plus.

It is hard to quantify the improvement in the system performance globally. Certain areas of certain systems have improved more than others. On average, there is probably a 20% improvement in efficiency.

The management planes have helped. There is still a lot of work to do. We have been busy migrating data, so we have not fully leveraged all the automation capabilities. At the moment, it would probably be a lower percentage of about 10%, but it could improve as we continue to use it.

NetApp ONTAP has saved about 10% of the time for our staff. There are some capabilities that could expand, but we have only been using it for a year and a half, so we have not fully utilized all the capabilities.

There have been about 20% to 25% cost improvements over our legacy infrastructure.

We were able to realize its benefits pretty much immediately. We have been migrating data for over a year now, but certainly, in those regions where we have implemented it, we could pretty much immediately see the benefits and cost savings.

One of the challenges we have is the ability to tag data with ownership for internal billing and chargeback. We have to utilize some third-party tools for that. It would be good if they were integrated with NetApp ONTAP. Everything else is pretty good.

I have been using NetApp ONTAP for about a year and a half.

I would rate the stability of the solution as nine out of ten. It has been pretty stable. We have had no major issues or big problems, and so far, there has been no downtime.

I would rate its scalability as nine out of ten. We leverage cloud pooling and tiering of data between on-premises and the cloud.

We have it in multiple locations. We have probably 50 on-prem physical manufacturing locations, and we are connected to four major clouds in the AWS region, one in Singapore, one in London, and two in the US.

We have a global operations team of about 35 people managing the environment. Globally, for file share data, we have more than 60,000 users.

We have raised some cases, and the support has been pretty good. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, we used all Dell products such as VMAX, PowerMax, VNX, Isilon, and Unity. We switched to NetApp ONTAP for better cloud integration and to make connectivity and integration more seamless. Like most others, we were moving on-prem data to the cloud. NetApp ONTAP as a solution made connectivity and integration a lot more seamless than the legacy Dell products we were using.

We have a hybrid deployment model. The initial setup was pretty quick and straightforward. We did not have any issues.

Implementing it was pretty quick. Setting it up and getting it configured was almost instantaneous. The biggest challenge was our infrastructure. We had to open firewall ports between on-prem and the cloud and also migrate data. Migrating data over WAN links was a big challenge, but that was outside of the actual setup of NetApp ONTAP, which was pretty quick and easy.

In terms of maintenance, we have a contract with Infosys to provide operational support. They handle day-to-day operations, and there have been no issues or challenges.

The biggest return has been on cost financials. We have seen some significant financial improvements with moving to NetApp ONTAP and some efficiencies in terms of operational support. Cost-wise, there are about 25% savings, and operations-wise, there is about 10% efficiency.

It has been cost-efficient. Compared to our legacy Dell infrastructure, we have realized cost savings. It is good.

I would certainly recommend NetApp ONTAP for its cost efficiency and ease of use. With the management planes, it is easy to set up, configure, and integrate.

I would rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten.

There might be multiple use cases in my company, but in my specific area, we are using it for doing asynchronous sync between the production and the DR servers. We have a financial trading system that needs to have a common storage space so that the servers we are running can access the same storage in the HA mode, which is the high-availability mode of the Artemis and FIX engines. We are using NetApp storage to be accessed by those servers.

It is perfect for the requirements we have. For our product requirement and our users' requirements, it is one of the perfect network storage solutions we are using. It's reliable, synchronous, and we are not losing any data when using it. That is the main requirement we have as of now for our product.

It was a replacement for the SRDF system. NetApp ONTAP gave us the benefit that we could have a single storage, single mount across all three servers, and they all could write to that location and read from there. That was the immediate benefit we saw, but the synchronization of the messages was very much the same as what we were using before in SRDF. I cannot speak about the performance metrics, but in the last seven years, we have never seen any downtime. We never saw any issues when doing the DR failovers. We have not lost even a single message, and access and everything else is very much in our control.

Our previous solution, SRDF, was a similar kind of product based on old technologies. We were looking for a change because SRDF was not giving us what we needed, which was basically three servers in high-availability mode. All three servers needed to have the same path and the same name for the storage. SRDF was not giving us this feature. It could only be accessed by one server at a time. That was the limitation. With NetApp ONTAP, we conducted research and a PoC, and we really liked it. It was very fast in terms of performance, and it met our requirements exactly the way we needed it in our production environments.

From the implementation point of view, I do not see any issues, but one thing I want to see is expanded support beyond Linux environments. In the future, we are going to migrate to Windows-based platforms. I want to see if we can achieve similar control and implementation with Windows, basically installing NetApp ONTAP onto a Windows machine and not just onto the Linux machine. That is something we are going to explore in the coming year because we are moving into more Windows-based implementations going forward.

Currently, there are limitations with Windows for this product. While I personally work more with Linux environments, which are more controlled and secure, our third-party trading system is moving to Windows as its core product feature. We want to retain NetApp ONTAP, but we need to see how we are going to implement it with Windows. That is the PoC we are going to do in the coming days, but from what I have read, there are certain limitations with Windows for NetApp ONTAP use.

We started using it somewhere around 2018-19.

I have not observed any issues in seven years. It has been perfect.

Scalability is really good. You can spin up new servers and do the same kind of mounting and create the storage. Scalability-wise, you don't need to stop anything that you already have; you can just keep adding. That is one of the features for which we picked NetApp ONTAP. If we want to scale it with more servers, it is very easy. We just create the same replica of that node, and then we are ready to go.

Before NetApp ONTAP, we were using SRDF. SRDF was pretty much the same platform, but with certain limitations that NetApp ONTAP doesn't have. After moving to NetApp ONTAP, we see that SRDF is not of much use in the new world where you have DR within your production server. The high-availability mode is not from production to DR, but within the production, you have multiple servers that can support. If one goes down, the second can support, so this product fits perfectly in that area.

That was easy. It took around four to five hours initially to set this up, but then we had some initial challenges with the access. After we overcame that part, it was easy. There might have been a slight misunderstanding on our part on how to install it. We did some tests and fixed the issue. After that, it was working fine.

Maintenance-wise, the only thing we need to keep doing is managing the VM infrastructure. The underlying VM infrastructure is changing, and in the coming years, with Broadcom buying the VM side solution, we might see changes that could lead us to move away from the VM base to something else. That project is in the initial phase, so we will do assessments on how we can implement it onto the new infrastructure, including evaluating costs and feasibility.

The deployment of NetApp ONTAP was all done in-house. There is an expert with whom we work within our company.

Deploying NetApp ONTAP required multiple people's team, but we have a subject matter expert. Since we have implemented it, we have never seen any issues with it. We have automated all the processes. For example, we do DR every quarter, so we have done the scripting to do the failover of NetApp ONTAP as well. All those things are automated. From that perspective, we do not see the need for more people in that area.

Its pricing is handled by a different department. We buy at the enterprise level, and then the cost is equally distributed.

The only advice I will give for new users is that the first basic thing is that your infrastructure needs to be on a Linux or Unix-based system. That is mandatory. If you are Windows-based, you will struggle sometimes. If you have your infrastructure ready, it is one of the right products to choose, especially if you want to have synchronous or asynchronous file transfers, or you want to have your data files or any kind of access control in place.

I would rate NetApp ONTAP an eight out of ten. It meets 100% of my requirements at the moment, but due to the Windows compatibility limitations, I deducted two points.

I work at an educational institute that conducts medical research. We use NetApp for unstructured storage, including both SMB and NFS file shares. In the past, we have also used it for SAP and for Fiber Channel presented storage, specifically for Oracle databases. It is mainly for unstructured storage and research data.

It meets our needs by providing the necessary shares to store our data. It is reliable, fast, and always available when needed. It is also very flexible regarding provisions. It helps to serve our storage needs.

CIFS and NFS protocols have delivered the most value. NetApp ONTAP offers very reliable CIFS and NFS protocols. By and large, the product itself is very reliable hardware-wise. 

The aggregate system needs improvement. I understand how they are alleviating this issue with all the FlexGroup volume. I understand the concept and how they get past the limitations of how much storage can be presented to a user. Currently, it is capped at about 300 terabytes, but there are situations where more is needed. The aggregates, in our case, are capped at about 800 terabytes. A way to alleviate that is by using a FlexGroup volume, which can exceed 800 terabytes, but that opens up a whole new set of issues for the future.

I have used the solution since 2002.

It all depends on who I get on the phone. I would rate their customer service a six out of ten. Bringing it back to the US would be great because I do not like dealing overseas.

Neutral

We definitely plan on continuing to use NetApp, but we are looking at other options. We also use Pure for a point solution for some applications. Pure is nothing but solid-state, and it has always been very pricey. Unstructured data for the researchers does not necessarily need performance, so it has always been an expensive solution. Over the last five or six years, Pure has developed effective SMB and NFS protocols, so they are catching up to NetApp in that respect.

We evaluated other solutions. NetApp has the best software in the market. After that, it is potentially EMC. The hardware is not the selling feature; it is the software. It was way ahead of anybody else in the way you can move data.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is very good.

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.

Positive

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.

I choose NetApp ONTAP over their competition because NetApp ONTAP and its devices are very powerful, with excellent scalability and efficiency in input/output operations per second. The ease of use of their operating systems is something you cannot compare, as they are very stable, and I am always happy with this.

The impact of the NetApp ONTAP product on my business is significant, as productivity and seamless scalability are crucial when increasing data capacity. It has a powerful effect on the organization and the costs of running the business, as well as on the technical personnel handling these tasks behind the scenes, which greatly helps improve decision-making in the organization.

I cannot pinpoint what I would like to see improved in the NetApp ONTAP product for now.

NetApp ONTAP has a very powerful tool in its operating systems and is robust for storage purposes, but I cannot pinpoint any specific features or functionalities I would like to see enhanced at the moment.

In the last 14 years before I started working on NetApp ONTAP, I worked with Oracle and Oracle's Sun Microsystems, their storage, and the servers of storage in the past. I also worked with HP, Dell, and IBM, which makes me think that NetApp ONTAP has an edge over all these vendors.

In the last 14 years before I started working on NetApp ONTAP, I worked with Oracle and Oracle's Sun Microsystems, their storage, and the servers of storage. I also worked with HP, Dell, and IBM, which makes me think that NetApp ONTAP has an edge over all these vendors.

The costs of NetApp ONTAP filers are very high, but the performance outweighs the costs, especially when working with larger organizations that generate bigger data and need their data to be well preserved; therefore, you must go for quality, which is what NetApp ONTAP provides.

The evolving cybersecurity landscape and proliferation of AI have influenced the technology decisions for my organization, leading to powerful improvements. Though I have not personally been involved much in the use of AI within the organization, we have other teams that handle those cybersecurity aspects, and I focus on the storage aspects.

I definitely have plans on the table for the management regarding how we will expand our use of the NetApp ONTAP solution, as NetApp ONTAP will always be in the forefront.

I am not aware of emerging business needs or growth opportunities that could be supported by expanding our use of NetApp ONTAP, as I am not part of the management. I will only recommend it when there is a need.

I do not have any goals for the next technology investment at the company at the moment.

What would have made my rating a 10 might be related to the pricing, as I know it to be quite high. However, I am sure that NetApp ONTAP will continue to maintain good quality in the storage enterprise, and I think the cost of these devices could be reviewed.

I would rate NetApp ONTAP as a product a nine, as I believe there might be other areas in which they will want to make some improvements, but I want to be fair and put it at nine.

The main use cases for NetApp ONTAP are that it's a feature-rich file system technology, which can be viewed in different operations from my experience working as a subject matter expert on the management side and the AWS side. 

It's an operating system that works the same way as a traditional file system, where you need to have a separate compute for it, and it's quite intuitive that you can interact with it the way you would a Unix or Linux system. The operating system itself is uniquely based. Some of the use cases that customers use it for include file shares, which could be for protocols such as Linux or Unix protocols, as well as Windows CIFS and SMB file shares. 

The nice thing about it is that you can have these systems use the NetApp ONTAP file share, whether you are a Unix or Linux user, and the most helpful thing about it is that you can manage all those users and allow them to have permissions, finding different configurations when it comes to that. 

Another noteworthy feature is compression, which optimizes space, as it helps with deduplication to manage redundant files and optimize space. Moreover, it has its own disaster recovery and archiving solution called SnapMirror, which is their snapshot replication technology that replicates data to a secondary site for high availability and durability. 

In terms of emerging technologies, NetApp ONTAP can interact with large language models and perform natural language processing tasks, acting as a data source to train AI applications and efficiently query data. Additionally, with its in-built monitoring capabilities, NetApp ONTAP aids in indexing due to its structured file system.

The impact of NetApp ONTAP technology on the way I do business is significant because, unlike traditional file systems, it has different features that enable it to operate as an operating system. This intuitiveness means that customers have a much more centralized place to manage everything, providing a broader scope of control. It's more centralized, allowing different types of storage in terms of network storage, whether it's file shares such as SMB, NFS, or iSCSI block for low-latency use cases.

Global customers greatly benefit from the ability to bring volume closer to end users who may be far from the original site. As for integration, I am slightly biased as an AWS user, but it integrates very well with Azure and has the tooling to interact with GenAI services on AWS and Azure, with Google Cloud offering integration capabilities as well. I observe that businesses admire NetApp ONTAP for its cache mechanism, allowing for cloning of volumes on the fly without complications. NetApp ONTAP also saves costs by utilizing intelligent tiering for data storage, balancing between cold storage and SSD, and using thin provisioning to manage storage capacity efficiently.

Currently, I don't have any notable suggestions for improving NetApp ONTAP; however, there might be potential in incorporating more AI features within the NetApp environment. 

A greater level of integration and smart capabilities, allowing the system to provide suggestions based on usage patterns without user intervention, could enhance the overall experience. Observing common issues, such as configuration discrepancies, could inform improvements in user guidance.

I started working with NetApp ONTAP technology in 2022 or end of 2021.

In choosing NetApp ONTAP, my organization did not consider specific competing companies; rather, the decision was made by higher management to move from traditional file systems to something that offers better replication capability for our customers across different sites. NetApp ONTAP technology presented an appealing solution, and upon announcing its availability, we noticed an increase in customers utilizing the technology, indicating its growing popularity.

The impact of NetApp ONTAP on my customers has been positive, simplifying their experience compared to traditional file systems, as the technology centralizes their data easily and allows them to take full advantage of its features. There are emerging business needs that can be supported by expanding the use of NetApp ONTAP for my customers. 

They continuously present intriguing ideas on utilizing the technology, particularly regarding AI integration. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate NetApp ONTAP an 8 out of ten.

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.