NetApp ONTAP Reviews

It's our main storage platform for our business applications. We have SQL and we do a lot of video editing. We also have a lot of media and sound data. Radio stations and TV stations keep some of their data on it.

Primarily, I do the data replication, the disaster recovery. Often someone will say, "Hey, I deleted this thing yesterday, can you get this back for me?" It's good that we have all those incremental Snapshots at different points in time that we can refer back to, to get them whatever they need.

Or we'll have someone download a virus, something malicious that corrupts a whole folder-tree of files. We can easily go back to right before they did that and just grab everything back. There are also ransomware attacks where they hold your data hostage by encrypting it. We can easily just go back and grab the data from before the attack. We can look back at the footprint and see when the whole tree was changed and restore the whole folder or the whole subset of folders. We might be down for two hours from it. An attack like that hasn't happened in the last nine months, but it has happened in the last two years.

It has also helped us reduce our overall cost of storage. Through dedupe and compression, we save a lot of capacity. Without that, we'd obviously have to buy more capacity. The last time I checked we were saving about 40 percent over our previous storage.

One of the things I find most valuable is the way they do the Snapshots, taking incrementals at points in time.

We just upgraded to 9.3, which is not the latest version, and it has some adaptive QoS built in. We have been using WFA for that. I'm interested in checking that out. I'm really glad they added it.

They use a lot of PowerShell for managing things and there are still a few things that you can't do through PowerShell cmdlets that you can do in the native CLI. It would be nice if they got more of those added in.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable as well.

The tech support is really good. We go through a support provider, Datalink, and those guys are really good. Anything that they don't have immediate knowledge of will be quickly escalated to NetApp and they're really quick about getting an engineer on it and getting us a solution. If we need a part replaced - of course, it depends what level of support we have for that particular system - everything is usually pretty quick.

In terms of a previous solution, when I joined this team they were already using NetApp. We did upgrade our controllers from 6290s to the 9000 but that was because of the age of the system. It was out-of-support and the support cost to maintain them got higher and higher as the years rolled by. It was cost-effective to invest in a new controller.

I wasn't part of this team when they initially set up all the storage, but we've had some upgrades, and we've gotten new controllers and added them to the cluster, and taken some out. All of those steps have been really straightforward.

Our reseller is Datalink and our experience with them has been really good. We've used them for several years. They negotiate really good prices for us and they give us really good support. If we need someone at a remote site, they'll schedule someone to support us at that site.

I don't handle the numbers, but the biggest ROI, to me, would be the ease with which we have our data protected.

We did look at Pure Storage and they were comparable in performance but they didn't have as many features. The gain in performance, for us, didn't offset the loss of the features, coupled with losing the relationship, or hurting the relationship, that we have with NetApp and Datalink.

The Pure system didn't have a way to do the iSCSIs that we need to use, and the impact to the relationship, to have a one-off system that didn't match the rest of them, didn't seem worth it to us.

In terms of NVMe over Fabrics, we no longer have any Fibre Channel. That was all phased out before I got on the team. In general, NVMe over Fabrics is good, it's quick. We aren't yet using machine-learning, AI, or real-time analytics but that is something we're looking into.

We use ONTAP for systems management, running and managing storage appliances.

ONTAP, for us, is underpinning all the software that sits on top of our hardware. We manufacture the infrastructure side of NetApp appliances. We use the capabilities of ONTAP for our customers. It's a case of implementation of that software and using that software to manage the storage arrays we're putting into our clients' environments. We also use it for PoCs. We'll deploy the software and demonstrate it for customers.

When you look at traditional, simplified storage, you would have a lot of manual command-line toolsets, you would have a lot of simple features and capabilities. With ONTAP and features like SnapMirror - the ability to have these more advanced capabilities - NetApp is leading that space. There are a lot of stats out there about what NetApp is doing around storage features and it's making it easier for our customers to consume rich storage features more easily.

The customers we work with absolutely use this solution for their mission-critical apps. For example, we have a university customer where NetApp underpins all their corporate systems. For them, that's mission-critical because they have to pay and manage, from an AP perspective, all of their internal customers. Without that system in place, without it being robust and reliable, they have no business, effectively, as a university. For them, it is absolutely mission-critical.

We have customers who have had ONTAP deployed for each of machine-learning, AI, real-time analytics, and similar groundbreaking applications. Our university customer is a good example. From an SAP perspective, they have a lot of rich analytics being done on that platform. ONTAP provides the best value for them. How the system gets architected is key, ensuring they have the right solution in place to get the best performance. The fact that NetApp performance, in general, is better than a lot of the competitors anyway has helped the university immensely.

In terms of helping us reduce the overall cost of storage, efficiencies such as Flash Cache and Flash Pool allow us to make better use of slower, cheaper storage and have some faster storage sitting up front taking a lot of the caching and the reading. The way that has been optimized for the NetApp platform is better than the competitors. It has reduced our cost of storage because we're buying cheaper storage, for the bulk capacity, which is really effective.

Storage efficiencies in ONTAP have been fantastic. For things like Snapshot-ing, when you are rolling out multiple clones, having good storage efficiency is really key.

Valuable features are SnapVault, SnapMirror, all the capabilities around Snapshot-ing. 

Also, the ability to then spin up copies of data in other data centers, on other storage appliances, is the most valuable for us and the one that we see the most interest in from our customers.

I would like to see more in the public cloud space around things like object storage. A bit more granularity around how that gets deployed would be nice, but other than that I think they've got it nailed.

The trend is heading in that direction, where more and more customers want to deploy applications that leverage object storage. It would be nice to have a more seamless integration, although it's not bad at the moment.

ONTAP is now in its ninth version. It's the most robust software on a storage platform on the market at the moment. I don't think anyone else has the same capability with the same level of flexibility.

The fact that you can have large clusters, you can keep bolting on more and more nodes, more and more appliances, makes it a lot more flexible than a lot of other providers. Normally, with a traditional SAN, you put a big SAN in the corner, stick some stuff into it, and leave it alone. Compared to having to buy another SAN with a different workload, the fact that, with NetApp, you can cluster and spread workloads across, makes it more scalable.

From what limited exposure I've had personally, our local support is fantastic. In terms of the process of raising tickets, I've not heard of customers having issues with the support mechanisms that NetApp has in place.

What typically drives the solution is the outcome for the customer. The customer will naturally follow down the path of needing a particular feature set to achieve some sort of outcome. We work through that list and figure out what that looks like. ONTAP seems to tick more of the boxes than any other product.

For the average person, it might not be straightforward but, in my opinion, the setup is more straightforward when compared to other storage platforms. Active IQ and the tools you have access to are a lot better than the competitors'.

Typically we work directly with NetApp on all our installations. Our experience with them has been fantastic. Really good guys, really good to work with, extremely knowledgeable.

We haven't measured ROI, but I guarantee there would be some. The cost per IOP is different for every customer environment so I can't give a figure for that.

IBM, since we're a partner. The reason I would go with NetApp is their products are a higher enterprise-grade than the IBM products, which is saying something. IBM is more of a mid-market play. The NetApp stuff is a more holistic, feature-rich set. It has more capabilities. The price points are roughly similar compared to competing products. NetApp is just a richer experience.

Do your research. Undestand what NetApp can offer. Talk to local NetApp resources and you'll find out a lot. One of the challenges a lot of customers have is that they don't know what they don't know. The more you talk to people, the more you will understand. I would advise talking to the local resources first, see what they've got. They probably have a solution, as far as ONTAP is concerned, that would fit into your requirements, the outcomes you're looking for.

I sat in on a session about NVMe over Fabrics this morning here at NetApp Insight 2018. Reducing the latency, getting storage to the application as quickly as possible, is phenomenal. That becoming the new standard, instead of the old-school SCSI approach, is going to become the next big thing. The fact that they're reducing that controller piece in it, the latency drops so significantly - traditional Fiber Channel is missing out on an opportunity to improve performance.

In terms of using NVMe over Fabrics with existing Fiber Channel, the good thing is that if customers already have investment in Fiber Channel networks, they can still take advantage of new technology from a storage perspective, without having to worry about upgrading and forklifting in new, specific equipment for that particular purpose.

As a software set, from a storage perspective, I would rate NetApp at eight out of ten because the maturity of the product is so much greater than the competition. I don't think anybody else has the level of flexibility and feature sets that ONTAP has.

We use it for the security business. We use it mostly for capacity-oriented purposes, rather than performance-oriented.

It's a major product for us. We are dealing with security stuff so the encryption features in NetApp really help, as well as the deduplication. We are able to minimize the storage hardware. The compression and deduplication have helped reduce our overall cost of storage.

The valuable features include replication, Snapmirror. That's really useful for us. Also, FlexGroup is useful as it is capacity-oriented, so we can keep extending the space.

I'm waiting for end-to-end NVMe.

It's been running for years and years and we haven't seen any issues.

Scalability is good. The NAS can expand to 24 nodes for the FAS series, and for SAN it can expand to 12 nodes.

We have had to use tech support and the response has been good.

We switched from our old solution because of the features. We went with NetApp because of the redundancy, availability, scalability, and cost.

The initial setup was easy. It took just a few commands.

We used a reseller. Our experience with them was good.

We did a PoC with a few other products.

ONTAP has been in use for over 25 years, that's one of the major advantages when compared to start-ups and other companies. It's also global, NetApp has support all over and, in case of an emergency, their response is good. When there is an issue, many people jump onto the call to try to resolve it.

NVMe over Fabrics is margin-technology at the moment, but the future will be NVMe. All storage, end-to-end, will be NVMe protocol. The speed of NVMe is good. The current existing technology is SCSI-based, one command per Cube, but with NVMe you can run 65,536 commands in each Cube, meaning 65,536 Cubes. That is really fast. In terms of NVMe over Fabrics with existing Fibre Channel infrastructure, if the hardware supports it, it should be good. As the protocol improves, there should be end-to-end support for the NVMe protocol.

We don't use this product for machine-learning, or AI, real-time analytics or other groundbreaking types of applications.

ONTAP is currently being used for data backups, migration of data, and volume management.

The most valuable feature is the ability restore and backup our virtualized servers on demand.

Its usability, scalability, and dependability are very good.

We are always looking for more security enhancements and ways to continue to provide security encryption, whether it's data in rest or security in transit. We would also like to have more enhanced encryption beyond the regular TLS and 256-bit. 

The stability is great.

The scalability is good. We were able to deploy multiple infrastructures underneath the cloud environment by utilizing ONTAP. It scales well with our environment.

We were previously using Dell EMC for our backup solution. After we created a virtualized environment and used the ONTAP appliance, we were able to provide a seamless process for backups and recoveries.

We chose this solution primarily because our customers were gearing towards NetApp.

The initial setup was straightforward. We started off with a small environment, which was used as a test environment initially. Therefore, we were able to deploy it into a much larger environment once we understood what we were doing.

We used an integrator for the deployment who was good. We used a provider through ClearChart, who partnered up with NetApp, and provided engineers who assisted with the integration of ONTAP. 

Ultimately, we chose NetApp because we were able to identify its strengths over other competitors.

Stay open to different technologies, as it's an emerging market. I do recommend the ONTAP product. I often offer colleagues a chance to come in and utilize our test environment to explore the different options around.

The product is good and sound. Our customers have been extremely satisfied with how we are using the product.

We use it as a file-based storage. We store a lot of unstructured and application data. Mostly data which needs to be shared across multiple mount points.

It gives us a location to store data across multiple mount points. It gives us functionality to provide Snapshots and backup outside of traditional backup solutions.

• It is easy to use. 
• It has been stable. 
• We haven't had any problems with it. 
• Getting support from our VAR and the vendor has been good.

The stability is great.

Being able to scale out at cost-effective capabilities doesn't compare to some of our other storage solutions, but it is coming along. NetApp ONTAP could improve its scalability.

The technical support is good.

We did not have another solution previously. 

We had specific use cases for file-based storage, and that's what drove us to NetApp.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used Datalink for the integration. They've been good.

Recently, we have seen ROI.

NetApp and Dell EMC were on our shortlist. We mostly chose NetApp because of its functionality. 

• Do a proof of concept (PoC).
• Understanding the high availability of the storage solutions, especially if you have rack resiliency requirements. 
• Understand how the solution is designed and configured.
• Understand what your performance requirements are.

We use it for cloud. We have a big VMware environment with CIFS, NFS, and other applications. Most of the data is on NetApp.

It has the ability to bring up disaster recovery quickly.

• High availability
• Deduplication
• Compression
• Encryption

The toughest thing that we have right now is a cabling issue. There are so many that you need to connect.

I would like to see more S3 integration with other vendors, objects, or instruments. We are a big Dell EMC shop and would like to have this integration.

It is very stable. Given you have so many nodes in a cluster, the volumes, connections, and lifts can be moved anywhere within the cluster.

It is better than some of the other solutions that we have used. It is easy to expand nodes.

We are a premiere customer. When we call, we get someone on right away.

We have grown with NetApp. As they grow, we grow.

The initial setup was straightforward, but there is some complexity. 

We used professional services from NetApp for the deployment. Our experience with them was good.

We save a lot because of the deduplication and compression.

We have a mixture of NetApp and Dell EMC.

NetApp does NAS well and better than other vendors.

Our primary use is predominately NFS data stores, iSCSI LUNs for SQL databases, and CIFS file share.

I think the biggest improvement we've had over the years where ONTAP has improved the efficiency of it. Organization is due to storage efficiency. They can do deduplication, which is greatly reduced our on disc storage. More recently compaction and certainly in the past have had compression. So the ability to use those compression techniques and then be able to mirror that to an external site and retain the compression techniques. The storage that it does save has been invaluable because we can then buy less storage, have less storage being transferred across the WAN, particularly where the DR sites, geographically dispersed over literally thousands of kilometers.

We use ONTAP for our ERP. It's a mission-critical application that runs 24/7. It needs to be online and responsive all the time. Our last reboot of one of the applications, the server had been up 1200 days, and it was more of periodic maintenance. Since it had been up over three years we thought we might just reboot it just to be sure, but aside from that, it runs 24/7 on an SSD aggregate. Performance is great and stability has been awesome.

We use ONTAP to clone databases and from those clone databases, we use data mining to pull out data from near real-time data sets. That's where the Snapshot and cloning features have come in.

ONTAP has reduced our overall cost of on-premise storage tenfold. We were looking at upgrades and had to evaluate another vendor. Once we took into account the Snapshot and cloning capabilities that ONTAP gives us, we literally would have bought maybe ten to fifteen times the storage we're currently using in the other vendor's storage. Obviously, that wasn't going to be economically viable. The decision was made to retain the ONTAP code base and just upgrade the existing hardware.

Definitely the most valuable features for ONTAP that we've come across are the Snapshot and cloning technologies. We take regular scheduled snapshots and from that we provision clones to SQL databases, which means that we can run multi-terabyte databases within literally minutes and do data analytics against those databases, pull them all down, and restart that process as many times as we like. It's a great use case because we used to be able to do that process every one to two weeks, but due to the restore procedure it would take twelve to sixteen hours to get any of those databases out back. Now, we can provision that in literally minutes. We can run that process a lot more frequently and get the answers back a lot more often.

We've been able to save a lot of space in our NetApp storage mostly due to the deduplication engine that runs. Particularly in our VM datastores, we're looking up to 70 to 80 percent of space efficiency being achieved through that. Add into that compression and now compaction with the new ONTAP version it's certainly pushing those figures more up to 80 to 90 percent.

The additional features I would like to see in ONTAP, and NetApp would probably be the single pane of glass software. Over the years that's probably the biggest area that we've struggled with. NetApp has had a lot of good products, but a lot of them haven't necessarily seamlessly integrated with each other and you have to go to multiple management consoles to manage their software or their hardware. From a customer point of view, I think that single pane of glass where you could just add modules and enable functionality would be the most beneficial thing that NetApp could add.

The stability of our ONTAP system has been awesome over the last four to five years, particularly with the software. The controls have been excellent as well. We recently went through a view of all of our systems and found a number of them had been up, over three years without any sort of reboots or downtime. We have been very happy with the stability of the systems.

The scalability of the systems has been excellent since the introduction of ONTAP cluster mode. Traditionally we had 7-mode, and once we upgraded to cluster-mode and found that we can scale nodes transparently, moving volumes around without disruption to the core systems have been really good and makes migrations easy as well.

NetApp Tech support has been very good on their ONTAP hardware and their ONTAP OS itself. The biggest area that we found it lacking is being around more of the support for the software the products outside of ONTAP, but the ONTAP support itself has been excellent.

I would rate ONTAP around about eight out of ten. The main reason for that is because I believe nothing can have a ten out of ten. Nothing's perfect. There is always room for improvement. The only reason I don't give it a nine is multi-terabyte databases of regular support. The product itself now is excellent. The stability, and the scalability, and the way it performs has been excellent.

We have been using it for our entire environment, so we use it in file shares and in our VDI environment, at least for user data. That has reduced our user login times by about 50 percent. This has helped, and probably been one of the biggest benefits that we've recently seen, getting people's logins down to 45 seconds from more than two minutes. It's helped with our backups times, and keeping our backup windows in compliance.

The main thing has been performance, but we're hoping that we also get there on the reliability section (with the MetroCluster), so we don't have any disasters. The performance has been so good on it. Even some of their tests that we're doing, switching workloads from one data center to the other, has been great.

While its performance has been great, the configuration with the MetroCluster has been a bit of a headache. We've been working through it. However, it's a bit of a tedious process. With the MetroCluster, in theory, we should have good reliability. We have been having some issues just the finishing the configuration. Some of our DR tests have been not successful, so it's been a little troubling.

We have had some issues with the architecture, because of the complex setup with the MetroCluster. While it is getting there, we've had problems. We've had some outages trying to get the system up, so it hasn't been very good, but I'm hoping we get there. This does not seem like it's necessarily a NetApp issue, but the architecting of it has been a little rough.

Going forward, I want to see a simplified deployment and more straightforward recommendations on what is required for it. They're a little vague, and we've had some issues where we would like to have a tool that can scan the environment and find issues before deployment, fixing issues. So, when we're deploying it, we're not running into problems. Simplification would definitely help.

The system stability has been good. 

We haven't had it too long, so we haven't needed to scale it up. It does look pretty easy. We have MetroCluster, then we have the All Flash FAS and the new 8200 hybrid. 

We've been able to scale out the 8200, which has been beneficial, as we offload some of the older, slower storage to it. We have quite a bit of room to grow by adding new nodes into it. Right now, we only have two-node clusters, which have been great to upgrade, and not an issue.

Technical support has been good, but since we're using MetroCluster IP, we've been a little bleeding edge. This has been a bit of a problem because there are not as many people who are knowledgeable in it. We have had some issues getting people who have good knowledge on the subject, which has been why we've had some of the issues that we've had. A lot of it is just foundation and architecting. We've had some issues with existing equipment compatibility issues that we didn't really discover in the initial planning. The technical support has been good, but it has been a bit of a slow process.

We ran out of space with our old storage. We didn't have any full DR redundancy because we didn't have enough space to do a DR scenario. The main reasons to upgrade: Not enough space, we needed to upgrade, and NetApp happened to be a cheaper solution than some of the competitors.

We migrated from Dell EMC storage, where did have some issues with capacity in the IOPS, and NetApp was the cheapest solution. We got more performance and bang for our buck, so we moved over to the NetApp All Flash system. 

The initial setup was pretty simple, just for the basics. However, when we tried to scale out and run it in production, that's when we ran into issues. Because we were sold Fibre Channel MetroCluster, then that ended up not working for our situation, we had to buy more equipment and switch it over to MetroCluster IP. This was smooth at first, but then the deployment on production was much longer process.

All the support and deployment has been primarily from NetApp. We do have a consultant who has been assisting with some of the networking pieces, but most of the actual storage is all done with NetApp. While they've been knowledgeable, it's a complex configuration, and sometimes we've had some issues with them giving us solid answers on which direction we should go. They'll help us do something, but they don't want to give too much architecting information. That's been a bit of a headache for us. They said it was going to take 60 days, and it's been six months and we're still not fully rolled out.

We went through a reseller to buy the solution.

We looked at just Dell EMC and NetApp. Those were the two main choices, as they are similar products with similar performance. We could see Dell EMC was definitely more expensive, but it also had a more complex configuration. On paper, NetApp seemed cheaper and a bit simpler, which was one of the main reasons that we moved over. The performance for cost ratio was really interesting.

I would recommend doing your homework and make sure the environment is prepped before getting it set up. Make sure you have any prerequisites and your equipment's compatible: The distance between data centers is the networking pieces being compatible with the all-flash MetroCluster. If you have any issues there, you're going to have constant headaches with the configuration. The main piece is make sure you have all your ducks in a row on your networking gear, make sure it's compatible, and fix the issues early before you start deploying.