We performed a comparison between Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"The solution is scalable."
"EFS is flexible."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"This solution has helped us because it is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of file storage."
"Lastly, the API and web services are fairly good. That is an important feature too. We write some code to do different things. We have code that runs to make sure that everything is being backed up as we say it is and we try to also detect places where we may have missed a backup."
"Replication to the cloud is the most valuable feature. Deduplication and compression are also very important to us. We are in the process of adopting to the cloud. We are going to AWS and we are trying to do a safety technician call out with integration to the cloud. NetApp allows us to move some of the volume to the cloud, at the same time that we continue providing the cloud services that we have on premises."
"So a lot of these licenses are at the rate that is required for capacity. So they're they're able to reduce the license consumption and also the consumption of the underlying cloud storage."
"SnapMirror helps mirror metadata and data volumes between endpoints in a data fabric."
"This solution has made everything easier to do."
"One thing I have noticed is that it is very simple to move the data where we need to move it, delete it, or archive it if we need to archive it to StorageGRID."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"The interface seems strange and complicated."
"It should be simplified. There are people who don't have cloud experience. It should be storage that we are able to just connect to."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"If they could include clustering together multiple physical Cloud Volumes ONTAP devices as an option, that could be helpful."
"The cost needs improvement."
"They definitely need to stay more on top of security vulnerabilities. Our security team is constantly finding Java vulnerabilities and SQL vulnerabilities. Our security team always wants the latest security update, and it takes a while for NetApp to stay up to speed with that. That would be my biggest complaint."
"I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively."
"There is room for improvement with the capacity. There's a very hard limit to how many disks you can have and how much space you can have. That is something they should work to fix, because it's limiting. Right now, the limit is about 360 terabytes or 36 disks."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"Something we would like to see is the ability to better manage the setup and tie it to our configuration management database. We manage our whole IT infrastructure out of that database."
"The encryption and deduplication features still have a lot of room for improvement."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is ranked 5th in Cloud Storage with 10 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Storage with 60 reviews. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is rated 8.6, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) writes "Offers integration capabilities that improve areas like storage and security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, Google Cloud Storage, Amazon S3 Glacier, Azure NetApp Files and Oracle Cloud Object Storage, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Portworx Enterprise. See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
See our list of best Cloud Storage vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.