I did not come across any drawbacks or downsides in NetApp Cloud Sync technology. This is good technology, but on the NetApp side, because we are working with file services and we are primarily using the SMB or CIFS protocol, it is not up-to-date with Microsoft. A big drawback on the NetApp side is that because we started encountering remote home workers in our infrastructure, we started to encounter multiple incidents or requests for improvement related to latency. Users were complaining that they have difficulty when they are working from home or over VPN to list folder structures or with multiple small files. Because of this, we found out that SMB protocol implementation in NetApp is not up to the Microsoft implementation, which includes improvements in SMB3 with QUIC. This affects NetApp in general, not just NetApp Cloud Sync or their products. This is a big architectural drawback.
If NetApp Cloud Sync supported other types of protocols, such as the SAN protocol, it would be very useful for replicating data from one site to another. On the support side of NetApp Cloud Sync, everything is good, but if they could implement support on the SAN side as well, it would be very useful. If AI capabilities were included in NetApp Cloud Sync, it would be very useful because if a failure occurred on the replication side, AI could identify it and what the issue was, allowing for easy resolution of the issue in the future.
NetApp Cloud Sync is a robust solution for data synchronization between on-premises and cloud environments, ensuring efficient and real-time data transfer that supports critical workloads and processes.NetApp Cloud Sync provides seamless data synchronization, helping organizations manage and migrate data efficiently. Compatible with multiple storage environments, it reduces complexity and enhances data accessibility. Users find it instrumental in maintaining data consistency and achieving...
I did not come across any drawbacks or downsides in NetApp Cloud Sync technology. This is good technology, but on the NetApp side, because we are working with file services and we are primarily using the SMB or CIFS protocol, it is not up-to-date with Microsoft. A big drawback on the NetApp side is that because we started encountering remote home workers in our infrastructure, we started to encounter multiple incidents or requests for improvement related to latency. Users were complaining that they have difficulty when they are working from home or over VPN to list folder structures or with multiple small files. Because of this, we found out that SMB protocol implementation in NetApp is not up to the Microsoft implementation, which includes improvements in SMB3 with QUIC. This affects NetApp in general, not just NetApp Cloud Sync or their products. This is a big architectural drawback.
If NetApp Cloud Sync supported other types of protocols, such as the SAN protocol, it would be very useful for replicating data from one site to another. On the support side of NetApp Cloud Sync, everything is good, but if they could implement support on the SAN side as well, it would be very useful. If AI capabilities were included in NetApp Cloud Sync, it would be very useful because if a failure occurred on the replication side, AI could identify it and what the issue was, allowing for easy resolution of the issue in the future.