NetApp ONTAP Reviews

One of the classic use cases is the high availability for both block and file. However, many different technologies within NetApp are of interest to our customers.

NetApp has a variety of different features and technologies on offer. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

It's a stable product.

The solution can scale well. 

The integration with other products, both security and third-party products such as Lenovo and others doing OEM solutions, that would be ideal. We'd like to have these with ONTAP on top. We'd like integrations with different types of backup solutions and so on. 

The price could be lower. 

We have a good sense of feature sets in the pipeline for the product and therefore are largely satisfied with both its capabilities and the roadmap. 

I've been using the solution for five years or so.

The stability is great. I'd rate it ten out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product scales very well. I'd rate it nine or ten out of ten. It expands easily. 

The solution works well for large or mid-size companies. 

Within our company, none of us is using NetApp storage as we are providing our customers with solutions.

From our portfolio, we're selling a lot of Dell EMC and NetApp. We're selling Huawei, and we're selling other storage space as well, such as some IBM. With that said, if you compare Dell EMC and NetApp, it's mostly based on the integration, technologies, and flexibility where we see NetApp being a better fit for many of our customers, yet not for all.

We have been working with NetApp a lot. Doing implementations is not a problem for us. 

95% of the time, clients can handle the initial setup. However, we primarily work with enterprise accounts, and those, even with a simple setup, can often lead to complex requirements.

The pricing is okay. I'd rate it three out of five in terms of affordability. It is not a cheap solution. However, it is quite stable and offers good value. 

We did evaluate this solution against other options. 

I'm actually a partner of Lenovo and NetApp. We're integrators. We set the solution up for our clients. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Based on my 20 years within the IT industry, NetApp is the best system out there. It is just not the cheapest. That said, looking at what it can do with Lenovo and other vendors make it a good option. 

We use NetApp ONTAP for many services concerned with banking solutions. 

The application and the application technology is really helpful to us. We find its use to be really good.

The licensing prices are really high. 

It would be nice if they make it so that one can operate the console without the need for interface-related comments. 

We have been using NetApp ONTAP for around three years.

The solution is certainly reliable. In the two or three years that we have worked with it we have not encountered any problems. 

As we are based in Iran, where there are many issues, such as sanctions, NetApp tech support has not been an option for us. 

We handled the initial setup on our own. 

I feel the licensing prices to be very much on the high side. I do not know how frequently these licenses must be renewed. 

In the three years that we have been using the solution, we have not encountered any problems with it and found it to work really well. 

As I have had experience working with EMC, PROMISE and HP, I would definitely recommend the solution to others. I find the solution to be really reliable and strong. Its storage device capabilities are very professional. 

I rate NetApp ONTAP as an eight out of ten. 

We basically use NetApp Storage as mass storage within our offering. We also use it for backup storage, storage for emails, and sometimes for archiving. Mostly it is actually general-purpose file storage. 

The solution has very good Snapshot features. Everybody goes to NetApp for Snapshot. Their Snapshots are very good. We use it for local backups. We also have a DR set up. We use Snapshot or SnapMirror for the DR applications. We also use Snapshot for backup purposes as well. Snapshot is the one thing I would say is actually the most useful feature for us.

NetApp is very stable.

They have all the latest features. 

Their support is good. 

The performance of the hardware is good. 

We're actually looking at a software-defined version of NetApp. They already have a software-defined product called ONTAP Select. NetApp's ONTAP version for the cloud is called the Cloud Volumes ONTAP. We are looking for the Cloud Volumes ONTAP, an on-premises option. Right now, the only option we have is the cloud and that's only available with AWS and Google. We already had some discussions with NetApp about it. It usually takes two or three months and a lot of money on a software-defined solution. If we gain access to it, we can run it on a virtual machine and it will still give all the features without having to buy their hardware.

The pricing could be lower.

The setup can be a bit complex, depending on the environment.

We have been using the product for a long time. I would say we've used it in total for 10 or so years, however, in different offerings. The names have changed and the company also changed quite a bit.

I've been working with the solution for ten years, and I've rarely had any issues. I consider the product to be extremely stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

The solution can scale very, very easily.

Technical support is good. I don't have any issues with them. Most of my interactions are very, very good except for maybe one or two cases over the course of ten or so years. Mostly I find it very useful. They are very responsive and knowledgeable. 

The setup up is a bit complex within our environment. We actually tweak it to our requirements. The integration for backup purposes, for example, we use NetBackup. However, then the solution that we have is a bit complex for backups, especially if we want to actually do a Snapshot version only. We actually take full backups every day. Our solution is actually a bit tweaked for our real requirement. I would say it is actually not very complex. That said, it is not very easy either. It is somewhere in between. There is some level of complexity in our solution.

To apply and maintain the product you need a team, definitely. To deploy it, it depends on how you set up your environment. In our environment, one person can deploy it because we have most of the tasks automated. For us, it is not very difficult to deploy. however, then you also need the dependency. For example, to build a network, you are required to connect the device to the network, and then to set up the backup. You need a team as it requires some integration with the network, with the backup, and whatnot. There are many, many things to do.

In our environment, we only need two people. That is due to the level of automation we have. To operate it, you also need a team. How big the team is depending on the service level. You may have to have people in shifts. In our team, we have many people. It's a global offering at this stage. So we have a presence everywhere. That requires a huge team. There are maybe 10 plus members supporting it around the clock.

The cost is quite high. They need to work on making it a bit more affordable. We buy the equipment as a one-time purchase and then also purchase five years of support. It's a CapEx model.

We are service providers. We are offering something called a virtual private cloud. Our offering mainly the virtual private cloud. It is a cloud offering by DXC.

The product is basically a multi-tenant cloud. The cloud is hosted on our premises. We have data centers across the globe. Around 24 data centers in different regions. It's a global offering. We automated it and we have it set up for provisioning or portal enabled. It is not as good as Amazon or AWS, however, it is still a lot of cloud.

You can request a portal, however, then you cannot scale to that scale that Amazon currently is. That said, there are some customization possibilities. It is slightly cheaper than the hyperscaler cloud and that is why most customers prefer it. They find it really useful and cheaper than a public cloud offering, and it still has the same performance level.

I would recommend the product. I don't see any reason why you would have to look for a different vendor. The one thing that they can improve is the cost. That's pretty high. That is the only concern. Otherwise, they are very, very good in all other areas. Their hardware, software, their support, etc., are all good.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've been very happy with the product overall.

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 solution for Hyper-V, VMware, SQL, Enterprise Vault, and Commvault.

This product has improved the way our organization functions because everything is working so well and we don't have any disasters. Everything is perfect. Our SLA (Service Level Agreement) is in RTO (Recovery Time Objective) and RPO (Recovery Point Objective). Everything just perfect. 

What I would like to see in the next release is the ability to combine all the clusters. Make it so that they will work not just pairs. If I have a four-node cluster, I want it to work for four and not just four pairs of clusters. This is what I am expecting as an enhancement.

My impression of the stability of the solution is very high. We don't have any problems.

I think the scalability of this solution is excellent.

The technical support is amazing. Amazing-plus. Technical support always answers. Whenever I need them, they are there. I don't have to wait or waste my time to get the answer by email. I just call them and they answer, and they immediately try to help us. So, if there is a 1 to 10, the technical support is an 11.

We switched to this solution because we always believed that NetApp is the best company for storage solutions. I don't think they have a real competitor because they have the perfect solution that is what the end-user really needs. Everything from the software to the hardware is very good. Other competitors have similar solutions, but not the same solution or quality. They have the hardware, they have the technology, they have a protocol, but not all the protocols. NetApp actually thinks about what the user really needs to dive in deep. They know why, how to make the customer satisfied.

The initial setup was straightforward. The technical guys came and deployed all of our operating systems. It was easy and maybe sometimes, not always, there was some small issue but in the end, everything is working very well.

We did not use outside help. We did the deployment ourselves.

The cost of licensing for our company is really not that much. We are a big company but we only use Fibre Channel SAN (Storage Area Network) storage. We don't use the others. So actually we did not need to use all of the licenses. So, the cost is really average for us.

Other competitor solutions that we were thinking about was mostly Nimble Storage. But it is not like NetApp.

We use the InLine Encryption solution for SnapMirror, SnapManager, SnapCenter, SnapMirror data protections, SnapVault, and that's all.

The Snapshot copies and Bin Clones solutions affected our application development speed because we run all this at the nights so we actually don't have any effects on performance. Even if we do it in the middle of the day, the users don't feel any latency. So everything is going well.

This solution has helped to reduce our organization's data footprint and reduced our organization's cloud costs by up to 100 K.

On a scale of one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a ten. There is no competitor like NetApp. You cannot compete with them because we have what we need and what we want and we are so satisfied that we are sure NetApp is the best solution for us.

The advice I would give to someone considering this solution is first to ask him what exactly the solution is that they are searching for. If I can see that they are using or considering a different solution that they think is like my solution, I prefer to invite them to come to our company and see how NetApp works. I would show them how the solution works and how it runs without any problems. If they want they can get full protection — the full self-confidence we call it. It is confidence that you are actually choosing the right tool and not just the vendor. They need to know the product is actually working. 

My primary use case for ONTAP is for VMware. We also use it for exchange and file storage.

ONTAP's improving my organization by allowing us to automate. The ability to automate day to day tasks, when using NetApp storage, frees up more time for forecasting, troubleshooting, and more planning.

The primary features that are most important to me, currently for ONTAP, are stability, first and foremost, and the ability to automate. ONTAP offers me PowerShell cmdlets and I can use Ansible via API to automate our day to day tasks. Previously, it was all the other software like, SnapManager, and Snapshotting, which a lot of other vendors didn't have.

I would like to see them have a continued focus on stability because there's so much software involved that it'd be really nice to just continue to have developers focus on that. It's the most important thing in the end, and other than that, I think they're working on a lot of the stuff that I personally am looking for, as well as more Ansible modules, and PowerShell modules.

Some of their products have been really good for us, on certain versions. We've run into a bunch of verts, though. That's NetApp's word for their bugs. Stability has been the main complaint that I've had with the product. Because it's so feature-rich and has so much software related to it, it does come with a decent amount of bugs so we do a lot of upgrades to patch bugs.

Scalability, for us, has been pretty good with ONTAP, since they went from 7-mode to ONTAP. Now that we can cluster environments, and have multiple nodes in the cluster, we've been able to scale to the point that our organization requires, as far as the capacity and performance.

We don't go directly to NetApp, but when we do interface with NetApp directly, we've had a pretty good support experience. There have been times where it's been difficult, depending on who's on staff at that time, and how long it takes to escalate. Recently, we've worked with our account reps, to nail down how to escalate immediately, and since we did that, we've had a lot better experience.

We knew we needed a new solution because I've always worked with NetApp, although we had another solution with a different company, and it came down to feature set. The solution we had didn't have SnapMirror, Snap plug-ins, and integration with VMware at the time, and  SRM. At that point, it was the feature set that made us switch over to ONTAP. At my current company, it's more of deciding to stay with the technology, and that's because of the existing feature set and ability to automate with it.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. That's where the reseller provides a lot of value. They have access to NetApp tools. NetApp would also have access to that, but we tell them the requirements, and what we're looking for, and what we're using it for. They come up with config, we look over it, maybe make some changes, go back and forth, and then, come up with the final config. We've had a good experience with that.

We used Datalink, and it's been okay. Mixed reviews with that. Delay in escalation is the only complaint there. Otherwise, they do provide additional stuff that NetApp wouldn't provide out of the box such as architecture and design help. In that aspect, it's been really great, but for support, it's kind of been easier just to go direct.

We've seen return on investment for ONTAP specifically on the performance recently. Where we had our file storage solution sitting on a hybrid storage solution and we were having continuous performance issues, as our workloads went up we were able to put in an 8300 all-flash array. Since we've put that in, we've been under one-millisecond latency, and that's allowed us to not have delays in some of our EDI transactions. Our end customer integrates and interfaces with that technology. Fewer outages equal more business, more profit, more revenue, and immediate ROI. We've been really happy with the new All Flash hardware solutions.

I would rate ONTAP as an eight. From 7-mode, they've come a long way, and I really like the features that they include. I'll give it an eight and not a ten because we run into a lot of bugs which have resulted in some issues, like outages, so I have to dock it there. As far as feature set and automation go it's a great product.

We're using it as a file-based solution. The majority of our business users are file-based. We're also using it for virtualization for backup storage. Its programs are very good.

We are also evaluating the All Flash FAS solution. 

The group that I work with is media-based, so we usually use large files as compartments. 

We do use ONTAP for our mission-critical applications.

We save space through deduplication. While it depends on the application that we're using, we can save anywhere from 2G to 3G, which is really good.

• It is easy to manage. 
• A novice can use it.
• The Snap features of ONTAP.
• It has all the good features that everyone wants.

It takes them a few seconds to do a failover. I hope they can reduce this to milliseconds or at least drive it down to less than two seconds. Some of their competitors are already doing this.

Stability is very good. 

You can scale it however you want, depending on your data center footprint. I don't see higher limitation for how far you can scale. It's the same interface so you don't have to worry about managing it.

I would rate the tech support as a nine out of 10. We get the support when we need it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We did not have to worry about the configuration, as NetApp comes in and installs it.

We used a reseller, who was really good, for the deployment. 

We are seeing ROI from ONTAP. Within three years of using the products, we barely saw any complications with its usage. We have been using it for over ten years now.

ONTAP has helped our organization reduce its overall cost of storage (somewhere in the high millions).

1. 1. We receive the best support for a lower price point.
   2. The price point is very competitive and inexpensive compared to what you receive from other vendors in the market. 

We just started knowing NVMe over Fabric. We haven't used it but I think it's a great idea. They are trying to make the data closer to the CPU, so it will give you more confidence.

Our approximate cost per IOP is $0.18 USD to $1.00 USD depends on the scale of the site. 

We use it to manage data in the cloud.

It has improved our mobility in managing our data anywhere and anytime.

Also, because it is deployed and managed from NetApp Cloud Manager as a software-only solution on Amazon EC2 compute instances, managing Amazon EBS storage enables customers to build a virtual storage solution directly on Amazon resources.

• Total control of data in the cloud
• Multiple consumption modes
• Rapid deployment

In addition, we have some databases hosted in this solution and are very impressed by the performance and speed of the solution.

The way you attach, move, migrate, and access LUNs is complicated, and if you do not know how to do it, it can be a great problem for your IT environment.

It can scale according to your IT needs.

There are two consumption methods: pay as you go and subscription. Pay as you go is purchased directly from your AWS account and is charged either on an hourly basis or annually. It is a little expensive but worth it.

Purchasing this solution through AWS Marketplace was secure. We purchased it there because we are AWS customers.

In terms of other products it works with in our environment, we have only tried it with database workloads in AWS.

I rate this solution at ten out of ten because NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP provides a level of flexibility that allows you to pay for what you need, when you need it.