We performed a comparison between NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp, Pure Storage, IBM and others in Cloud Software Defined Storage."It's very easy to set up, and within 40 minutes, you can apply storage notes in Azure."
"The ability for our users to restore data from the Snapshots is very valuable."
"Its functionality and technical support are adequate to help prevent failure due to errors."
"CVO gives us the ability to access data as quickly as possible, which is critical because of the mission set we handle. Some things cannot wait. For example, we tried having the data in the cloud itself, but it took too long for us to retrieve it from cold or deep storage. If we have it ONTAP or on-prem, it's so much easier to pull it within minutes."
"The ease of use in terms of how the product works is valuable. We are able to work with it and deploy the storage that we need."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We started with a small pilot and we then moved to production with no downtime at all."
"If anything happens, their technical support will come onsite and fix it."
"ONTAP's snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery are pretty useful in recovering your data from a time in a snapshot. That's pretty useful for when you have an event where a disaster struck and then you need to recover all your data. It's pretty helpful and pretty fast in those terms."
"The most valuable features are the backup and disaster recovery services."
"We feel the ability to move virtual machines while they are still running to be the most valuable feature."
"The initial setup is easy depending on the environment you are working with."
"Technical support is very proactive and helpful."
"Setting up VMs can be done quickly. It is easy to use."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"I would like this solution to be brought to all the three major players. Right now it's supported only on AWS and Azure. They should bring it to Google as well, because we would like to have flexibility in choosing the underlying cloud storage provider."
"When Azure does their maintenance, they do maintenance on one node at a time. With the two nodes of the CVO, it can automatically fail over from one node to the node that is staying up. And when the first node comes back online, it will fail back to the first node. We have had issues with everything failing back 100 percent correctly."
"When it comes to a critical or a read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the performance that some applications require, especially for SAP. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not fit there. It could be used for other databases, where the requirements are not so demanding, especially when it comes to write-latency."
"The solution could be better when we're connecting to our S3 side of the house. Right now, it doesn't see it, and I'm not sure why."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to see the Azure NetApp Files have the capability of doing SnapMirrors. Azure NetApp Files is, as we know, is an AFF system and it's not used in any of the Microsoft resources. It's basically NetApp hardware, so the best performance you can achieve, but the only reason we can't use that right now is because of the region that it's available in. The second was the SnapMirror capability that we didn't have that we heavily rely on right now."
"The solution is not stable when using single nodes. This is a problem. NetApp should work on this solution to make it more stable with HA nodes and resolve this issue."
"I would like to have more management tools. They are difficult to work with, so I would like them to be a bit more user-friendly."
"VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery could improve by enhancing the network bandwidth from the storage."
"The improvements should be as per customer requirements."
"When starting up the replication and converting it to the virtual machine I had some problems. I had to start the process again and that is inconvenient."
"It would be ideal if they added advanced analytics or AI to the solution."
"The automation should be simplified or improved."
More VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Software Defined Storage with 60 reviews while VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery is ranked 4th in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 5 reviews. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8, while VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery writes "Application can be migrated from one host to another in respects of virtual machines without the user taking notice". NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Red Hat Ceph Storage, whereas VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery is most compared with Zerto, VMware SRM, Veeam Backup & Replication, Azure Site Recovery and Rubrik.
We monitor all Cloud Software Defined Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
