NetApp ONTAP Reviews

We use NetApp ONTAP for everything. Because it is hybrid, we use it in a private cloud environment and in our shared environment with a very broad range of IOPS requirements, which means we use it as the basis for our VMware environments and as a storage for databases. In the backup area, we use it with HDDs—with the cheaper ones—and for backup target as well. So, we use it basically for everything. 

Unifyed the management, the automation, the monitoring and accounting in the storage landscape. Less administrators in the operation and internal development are able to take care of most issues.

The most valuable feature is the very high IOPS rating which you can achieve with it and the customization capabilities of the storage are very feature rich. 

I cannot think of any technical improvements or features we're missing right now. The encryption on transport was a feature we wanted, which is supported by ONTAP, starting with ONTAP 9.8. Being conservativ and carefull, until now we use mainly 9.7. Until version 9.7 only encryption on rest, meaning the storage volumes itself could be encrypted. Starting to upgrade to 9.8  we will be able to encrypt the traffic as well between the storage and the client OS. 

I have been working with NetApp ONTAP for a decade. 

I would say it's really stable. We have almost no downtime because of storage outage. Sometimes the network interface fails, but I have almost nothing negative to mention about the storage itself, with the controller. 

This solution is scalable. We are satisfied with this because, recently, NetApp introduced smaller devices: for example, the C190. One of the complaints we had earlier, within the company, was that small pieces were not available. There weren't really any entry options for private cloud environments, which are isolated from each other and don't require very big machines, but less storage amount (TBs). In the past year or two, there have been small machines as well. This means that in the lower side, the entry side, we have a lot of new possibilities within NetApp. And on the other side, when we have already implemented something, we can just add to our cluster to expand the capacity, which we are satisfied with. 

Our relationship with NetApp has been alive for more than a decade, and it's a very good relationship. We have great support and I can't complain about it at all. We also regularly take advantage of the NetApp learning offerings, workshops and trainings.

Positive

The initial setup is easy for us because we have already been doing it for many years. We have a lot of automated stuff around it—using Ansible, for example—and we use templates and skilled professionals when we implement something. These make this solution easy for us to implement. 

Also, the upgrades are very well planned and straightforward. 

We mostly purchase professional services with the products. They are well trained and professional. It minimizes the risk and the time we would need to invest when implementing new storages ourself.

We don't use the latest update. We are always at least one release back because we are very conservative and don't want to be the testers for new updates, but this means that we aren't using the latest features. Version 9.9 or 9.10 has already been introduced, but we are starting to use 9.8. 

To those considering working with ONTAP, I would advise starting with at least Version 9.8 (not an old operating system) because there are some really good features. For example, support for transport encryption: encrypting the traffic between the storage and the clients. Support for this starts with the 9.8 operating system and this feature is very important to have, not only to encrypt the storage itself—the so-called encryption at rest—but also to encrypt the traffic. 

I rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution to manage storage. It comes with the hardware.

It is a basic storage management software. The integration is good.

Sometimes, we face problems with support.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. We do not face any glitches or downtime.

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten. It is pretty easy to expand.

The support team is in a different country. The response time of support for our region must be improved.

Positive

The solution is not complex to work with.

The vendor does the setup.

The product is a bit expensive. I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

I recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We deployed it for storage consolidation, core banking solutions and to host core banking applications. We have also deployed it for disaster recovery replication solutions. We have a combination of on-premises and ONTAP Cloud for data protection, replication, and instances.

We also use this solution for databases on flash and DFF deployed for core database systems to manage call database systems.

It is a unified solution, and you have all the licenses for all the protocols available on the ONTAP. It also has easy management, so if somebody's running ONTAP 8, they can still manage ONTAP 9. It's the same commands, just a few syntax changes. It is very easy to manage in terms of system and GUI management. You can set up the system in under 15 minutes, and it will be up and running. Also, regarding system administration, it is fascinating that we can manage the smaller systems the same way we manage the bigger systems. There is no difference in terms of system administration and creating logs. The simplicity of the OS is a key selling point, and mixed customers appreciate it.

It's a perfect system, we have been using it for many years, and many changes have been made, but the rate of technology could be improved. It takes about 60% of the raw capacity to get a user to capacity. It is a lot, and competing solutions don't take up to that in terms of the rate.

I don't think anything needs to be added in the next release. The ONTAP 9 is perfect, and none of our systems have upgraded to the new updates. The updates usually address significant failures. We don't have any technical issues with NetApp ONTAP's system, and with no updates, it is still perfect. However, it needs to be monitored due to security threats, so most updates ensure that security is well managed and handled.

We have been using this solution for 11 years and are working with the latest updates. It is a hybrid environment and deployed both on cloud and on-premises.

It is stable and reliable.

It is one of the most scalable storage solutions.

The technical support is fantastic. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

We've worked with Dell and HP products. The scalability in NetApp ONTAP is the best. The technology is almost the same across solutions, and you can create volumes, logs and maps. In addition, the NetApp ONTAP is unified, and you can do all protocols on a single controller. For other solutions like HP, you have to buy system licenses. For NetApp ONTAP, if a customer starts with a very small system and grows, they can buy bigger ones and integrate them with smaller ones with no issue because they are running the same operating system.

The setup is straightforward, and our company provides all the implementation services. If all information is available and there is a power supply, the system is set up in less than 30 minutes. I rate the setup a ten out of ten.

Maintenance is the function of the customer and the kind of application that is deployed on the product. Usually, the system comes with a minimum of three-year support by the OEM, and NetApp ONTAP takes charge of doing that for patch replacements, patch upgrades and access to software updates. In addition, they have the next business day and four-hour support. However, four-hour support is unavailable in our region in West Africa due to resources, so we sell next business day support.

Weekends are challenging to provide support, but partners intervene during the weekend before NetApp ONTAP comes up on the next business day. So, we have various support, but West Africa has limited choices due to the cost and contract business. However, most of our customers enjoy it and don't have issues.

Everybody can work with NetApp ONTAP. I have customers with very low budgets running NetApp ONTAP, which is where the NetApp ONTAP Cloud comes in. It doesn't have to be hardware. NetApp ONTAP is software that is now a commodity like VMware so that you can buy it on Amazon, Azure, and as a commodity. If you're a big company, you have access to bigger platforms, and if you're a small company, there are smaller platforms.

The price is relative. Once the value is appreciated, price is a much simpler issue. In terms of licensing, I feel NetApp ONTAP is a bit pricey compared to other solutions, but it has value, and the total cost of ownership of the NetApp ONTAP system is cheaper than the others. The initial cost might be a bit high, but over a period of time, it's cheaper. I rate the price a six out of ten, with one being expensive and ten being cheap.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. Regarding advice, if you are looking for a unified environment where you can use all your protocols anytime, you want NetApp ONTAP to be the answer. If you want scalable storage with good OEM support where you can deploy on a hybrid environment across multiple clouds and on-premises, NetApp ONTAP is also the answer.

NetApp ONTAP is the obvious choice for what we're doing, which is the simplification of a hyper-converged environment.

The most valuable features of NetApp ONTAP are its data redundancy, performance, storage catering, snapshot technology, and NetApp Insight. From a reporting mechanism, the solution fits our needs perfectly.

With NetApp ONTAP, the technology is all there, but its management process needs some simplification. Compared to NetApp ONTAP, Pure Storage, for instance, is a better model.

I have been using NetApp ONTAP for the last 25 years.

We've had just one failed disk in the last five years since I deployed the solution.

I rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability depends on the environment you've got set up. For instance, if you're using NetApp clusters, it's easier to scale. If you're not using NetApp clusters, it gets more complicated to scale. Approximately 400 users use NetApp ONTAP in our company. These 400 people are internal users, but the customer base is much bigger.

I rate NetApp ONTAP a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is complex.

We used the help of NetApp professional services and one of our other vendors for the solution's deployment.

NetApp ONTAP is a pricey product, but you pay for what you get. I rate NetApp ONTAP a five out of ten for its pricing.

Just one person is required for the maintenance of NetApp ONTAP.

I have a lot of experience with other vendors. I always choose NetApp ONTAP because no other solution meets our requirements. I would recommend NetApp ONTAP to other users.

Overall, I rate NetApp ONTAP a nine out of ten.

As an automotive company, we are able to run some applications on NetApp ONTAP.

The MFS report is the best feature for us.

I believe that the next release should be a bit cheaper.

I have been using this solution for about ten years.

NetApp is very stable, this is why we went with this product.

This is a scalable solution.

Support is very good. They are available 24/7 and respond within four hours.

We used EMC in the past. It was good at the time, but it was crashing a lot. This is why we switched to NetApp.

The initial setup is straightforward as it is done by NetApp themselves and it does not require any maintenance on our side.

ONTAP is expensive, but most storage systems are now-a-days and everything is included with the license - there are no additional fees.

This is a stable environment that is easy to manage and good to work with - eight out of ten.

Our client's primary use case is for the storage aspect of the solution, mainly for the block size.

The reliability of the storage is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The hardware of the solution is very reliable and there are hardly any issues at all. There rarely are failures, especially when you compare it to other vendors, which have a higher failure rate.

For example, HPE tends to be more prone to disc failures. In the case of ONTAP, this is extremely rare.

The OS is very user-friendly. Due to the fact that the architecture of the system is the same, once we learn ONTAP, we don't have to worry about drastic changes. Other vendors tend to change their products, and then we have to re-learn everything again, including the complete UI and configuration. With NetApp ONTAP, once you learn it, only a little bit of updating is required.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The solution is more for mid-range companies. 

The integration could be improved. There used to be an integration product called Snapper Tech, however, it's not available anymore. The vendor-partner relationships need to be improved across the board.

The back-up side of the solution could be improved, as could the archive. We still have to rely on third-party backup programs and other archiving solutions. If it was offered by NetApp itself, it would be much better.

The solution seems to be changing and moving towards the cloud and it will require many changes in order to be able to adapt to this shift.

I've been dealing with the solution for almost ten years at this point. It's been a long while.

The solution is easily scalable. It can, due to the features itself and the Cluster ONTAP features it supports. There are additions that need to be purchased so that the customer can scale, however. Other than that, yes, you can scale it well.

The solution best suits medium and enterprise customers. The price is small compared to other companies. 

So far, we've been very satisfied with technical support. They are quite knowledgeable and responsive.

The initial setup is not complex at all. In fact, if you compare any other storage, ONTAP is easier to install, implement, and manage than other options. 

We deploy it for our customers.

In order to scale, you do need to purchase add-ons.

I'm on the partner side, and therefore not an end-user.

I would recommend the solution. Its cluster and storage are quite good.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. We enjoy working with it.

We use pretty much every part of the product in our company. The core of our company is in the United States and Germany and we are using MetroClusters usually for that kind of workload.

The product helped improve the way our organization functions because we are able to centralize mission-critical applications on the MetroClusters. Previously they were spread out in our environment and now it is easier to use and administer them.

The high availability is one of the most valuable features. But it is also nice that it is easy to do snapshots and to recover things using SnapVault. Those are great features.

I think everything can be improved, really. The IT world is evolving all the time, so there's always a new challenge and always a new thing to improve. It is harder to say what that could be. In a perfect world, there should exist some kind of guide as to what kind of workloads you would be able to mix within the same cluster or aggregate. That would be something really good and useful for us because we have centralized everything in just one MetroCluster. Now we are not sure if that architecture is actually giving us a few headaches or if it is something different. We have more than 15 petabytes of space use and we have a really low percentage of failures. In the boxes that are not really I/O (Input / Output) intensive, they are working very well.

The standard allowance for HA (High Availability) is really good. We do not have many usage problems with that. For the MetroClusters, we have had some problems with latency related to some calls on the backend. But besides that, it usually is a very stable environment in the MetroClusters.

The scalability is good. We started with a two-node MetroCluster, then a four-node MetroCluster and then an eight-node MetroCluster. The eight-node MetroCluster is giving us a lot of headaches. The four-node MetroCluster — if it's correctly sized and configured — it is really good.

Usually, technical support is really good. Most of the time they have a really good response. I really like the Zoom sessions because we can solve everything right away. That has been a great improvement from their support services.

We do feel that they have been supportive with the bigger issue that we had. In this case, we understand that a lot of people are involved. The thing is that I think there are some technical challenges for support and other cases being driven by the engineering level. So I know it is a difficult case and eventually, they will resolve it.

We never needed to invest in a new solution because we were always using NetApp. We were using Windows Servers before for NAS (Network-attached Storage) environments.

The initial setup was very simple. It is just making the purchase and getting up and running with a technician. We already have WFA (Workflow Automation) workflows for that and to deploy our standards, so it is quite easy. In just two or three days it was done.

We have to run proper procedures for discovery, so we invited every vendor in the market and then we continued working with them until we narrowed down the solution to only NetApp. The reason we ended up choosing NetApp is that it has great features other products don't have all of together. Features like Snapshot. 

The support is really good also. Usually, the releases of firmware are not that good because we usually get a lot of bugs that we need to address. We like the hybrid models and the all-flash modes. We have all kinds of sizes and flavors, but those are the ones that really work. We haven't implemented anything for block-level yet, but maybe in the future, that may be on our roadmap.

The solution's Snapshot copies and VIN clones work very well and they are easy to use for recovery. We have a huge environment. We are running around 15 petabytes of data, so doing backups and restores is a daily job and these features have done marvelously for our environment. It speeds things up and it is really easy for us to manage, especially in that size environment.

Snapshot copies and VIN clones also affected our application development speed and made it way easier. We are not using containers so that has sped things up a lot. We love that feature, really.

Consistency of storage management affected our storage operations by helping to reduce our organization's data footprint. All the space savings — on-prem, of course, because we do not use the cloud — is honestly really good. Overall, we experienced around 30% savings.

Apparently we have a lot of latency but it is not related to the protocol. It is something within the operating system of data on top. It is still a question we have open with support and we have no answer so we do not know what the problem is yet.

On a scale of one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. The eight is only because of the problems that we already had. We would expect that a MetroCluster would be able to provide huge performance and we had so far three outages during this year. That is quite a lot really. Overall I think it is still a really good environment and using NetApp has been a really good solution for us. But outages hurt our experience overall. It would be a ten for us if we had 100% uptime.

The advice I would give to people considering this solution is to be very careful about the kind of workloads they are running. Keep a really close eye on things. It is best to use all the features of NetApp rather than just buying isolated boxes.

We use this storage device for databases, storing databases, and VMware. When it comes to databases ,we have Oracle, SQL, and mission-critical applications. Therefore, we need very good response times, and we get very good response times from NetApp All Flash systems.

Queries are being completed in less time. For example, we have seen a three times improvement when it comes to running a query. If query used to take an hour, now it takes 10 to 20 minutes.

• It does both file and block storage.
• The compression works well. We get a 3:1 ratio.

• We would like to be able to provide feedback immediately after receiving technical support.
• Make it a simpler. Our entire industry is moving towards simplicity or automation, we spend a lot of time doing storage allocation. It's too complex.
• Have integration with other storage providers. 
• I would like cloud integration where we can send data to the cloud. Engineers should be able to click on one button (integrated with their phones), and move the data from NetApp to cloud.

It's a stable product. So far, we have not seen any issues. It has worked as expected, meeting our expectations.

It scales up, so I don't see any issues with scaling the system.

When it comes to support, we usually go into NetApp chat and request help. Most of the time, our interaction with their support is nice and they are willing to help.

Sometimes, you have a team of people, where 10 or 15 people are working, and you are not going to get the same result from everyone. It happens when we call support sometimes that we do not get what we need, then we work with the manager.

ONTAP has helped us reduce the cost of storage by a lot. We were using IBM XIVs (hybrid system) and were paying high costs, except for the maintenance. Now, we are on all-flash and we pay less than what we used to pay.

ONTAP is an operating system, but we also wanted to invest in all-flash. We evaluated multiple products and we liked ONTAP's performance and its cost.

The initial setup is too complex. It should be one click. Anyone with basic knowledge of storage should be able to set it up. Instead, there are too many moving pieces. You have to do plaster configuration, north configuration, and port configuration, and these things should be fully automated. Customers should be answering a few questions and system should be ready for application on user portals.

The overall implementation was done by a reseller, IS. 

We see ROI, but I was expecting more. Right now, what happens is I have a team of 10 or 12 people, and the investment is going into managing them instead of doing something new.

Moving to all-flash from hybrid, we brought the response time down from 10 milliseconds to some milliseconds.

We evaluated Pure Storage and NetApp. Cost was a value factor in selecting NetApp.

We are in a testing phase at this moment for machine learning, AI, and real-time analytics . We have a team who is testing Docker on this.

In future, we will be using NVMe over Fabric. At the moment, we are still immature.