Azure NetApp Files Reviews

The primary use case for Azure NetApp Files is unstructured data.

We have this solution deployed both on Microsoft Azure and on-premises.

Azure NetApp Files gives our clients better options.

My clients have seen a performance increase in a range of between five and thirty percent.

The scale-up and scale-down capabilities of the solution have provided flexibility in both capacity and performance, as well as billing. It has streamlined our operations, making them more flexible and allowing for easier growth.

The dynamic resizing has given us better position, accuracy, and deployment, so in this perspective, it has saved time.

As a partner, we have multiple use cases on a daily basis. There is a lot of flexibility and lots of use cases that fit well with this solution.

With regard to the ease of use and reduction in management versus the cost, this solution is excellent. The time to market is quick.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its flexibility.

The speed of this solution is adequate.

The fully integrated Active Directory was exactly what I was looking for.

This solution would be improved with more innovation.

I have been selling NetApp for about fifteen years.

Stability has been good to this point.

Scalability has been good, so far.

The technical support for this solution has been good.

We are a Microsoft Premier Partner in Cloud, which made for a nice bridge because we were already partners with NetApp.

The initial setup of Azure NetApp Files varies. It can be anywhere from the basics to extreme complexity.

We are the solution integrator who implement this for our clients.

The licensing fees for this solution vary, ranging from a single shelf to a full suite.

We did not evaluate other options. NetApp is always on our short-list.

I recommend Azure NetApp Files.

This solution just fits our needs, and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

We have implemented Azure NetApp Files in our lab, and we have tested the NFS and CIFS protocols. We are looking for the multi-protocol approach, where the clients can leverage both protocols to access files, whether they are using Windows or Linux. Once we have this, and the data protection is in place, will we begin using this solution internally.

One of the benefits that I saw was that the administrators are hands-off, and don't have to worry about disk replacements. All we care about is creating volumes and giving our clients access to those volumes. This functionality is critical because we are a very lean team, and it gives us back a lot of cycles.

In terms of seeing a performance increase, I would not say that this is our use case. We are concerned with functionality at this time. Traditionally, the way we see it, if we want more performance then we keep it local because we see the price point going up when cloud applications need higher performance. As of now, we don't have any applications that require that kind of performance in the cloud.

The scale-up and scale-down capabilities of the solution provided flexibility in both capacity and performance. In terms of operations, this solution has given us a lot of cycles back. We don't have have to deal with the scheduling and the data center folks when it comes to things like third-party disk replacement. It is hands-off.

I would say that ease of use is one of the highest items because it doesn't matter if I'm there in the company or not, tomorrow somebody else might come in and for that person, the learning curve is very linear. They will be able to pick it up in, probably, a couple of days and it's not a lot to learn. It's very intuitive when we are using Azure NetApp Files.

We have only done preliminary testing with dynamic resizing, but I would say that it has not saved us time.

At this point, using NetApp Files has not given us the opportunity for new use cases.

Features are being added to this product at a very slow pace, and they should be speeding that up and being a little more aggressive.

The critical features of this solution are SnapMirror for replication, data protection, and SnapLock.

Replication is important to us because we are a financial company, and we would like to have a second copy of the data available to use no matter what. Whether we are running on-premises or in the could, we would like to have it available in a different region.

The data protection is important because regardless of the disaster recovery, we were running into a situation where the data is corrupted in both locations. 

SnapLock is used for WORM files, where they are locked for a certain amount of time and nobody will be able to delete them. It is SEC compliant, which is important because we cannot put data onto these systems until the FINRA or SEC compliance is there.

This solution is intuitive, easy to learn, and easy to use.

We would like to be able to replicate data to different regions as soon as possible.

The data protection piece is missing.

We would like to have backup functionality built-in so that we don't run into the issue where the replication process makes a copy of the corrupted data.

Technical support needs to be improved.

We trust the stability of this solution. We have been using ONTAP for probably a decade and we trust the code. This is basically the UI that is changing, and we believe that everything else under the covers is still there, operationally.

NetApp Files is definitely scalable. However, to what extent and what price point is something that is yet to be seen for us.

We do not have to pay NetApp for support, but at the end of the day, we still have to have support, regardless of the product. So, either way, we pay NetApp or Microsoft so it doesn't matter. We still need support for the product.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the technical support a two. There are very few people who understand this technology inside NetApp. If you need to have an answer on a specific question then you need to go to the right people, which means that you have to know who the right people are. Otherwise, the question will be lingering around for months.

Microsoft brought this solution forward to us. Once I heard about it, I saw the value in getting our time back. That is very important for us because we are a lean group and we do a lot of things with very few people. That is one of the main drivers for implementing.

Azure's Service and support did not influence us in going with this solution.

The initial setup of this solution is very straightforward. Anybody who understands Microsoft Azure will find it pretty straightforward to create volumes or enable the licensing. It's very easy.

I deployed this solution, myself.

Our pricing has not been determined because we are still waiting on additional features.

We do have Cloud Volume Service on AWS, which is pretty much the same, I would say. There's no difference between this solution and that one. However, Azure NetApp Files is better for us because we manage Microsoft Azure as well.

My advice for anybody who is researching this solution is that it's a good opportunity for companies to save time on operations.

Definitely, I would recommend Azure NetApp Files over AWS because I have seen more of them, and I prefer NetApp. We have built a lot of functionality ourselves in the form of traditional, homegrown scripts. Even though the snapshot capability was not there, we had the ability to do it using scripts. It was easier, I would say. AWS has been there for a very long time so it has that benefit. It's more mature than Microsoft Azure NetApp Files, but personally, as Microsoft users, we recommend this solution.

This is a good product, but they have a couple of key elements in the works that need to be delivered within the next one or two quarters.

At this time, I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use this solution for SQL backups and restores.

Right now, we've stopped using this solution because we finished our migration. We are looking to work with Microsoft and NetApp to see what other innovations we can do with this solution, on other practical problems in our infrastructure that it can solve.

The scale-up and scale-down capabilities of the solution have provided flexibility in both capacity and performance. We were able to scale up and add more capacity with zero downtime, allowing us to continue in our migration without having to refactor anything.

NetApp's dynamic resizing has saved us hours.

Prior to implementing this solution, we could not perform really rapid database backups and restores. This new use case allows us to easily do data migrations instead of them becoming a time-consuming, very long-planning affair.

When comparing ease of use, simplicity, and reduction in IT management versus the cost, I would say that this solution is fair. It is about four times the cost of premium storage on Azure, so in order for us to use it, we'd have to be willing to increase our storage costs by four times. It would be nicer if there was a little bit less of a differential.

The most valuable features are the quick spin-ups and spin-downs, ultra-fast SQL backup and restore.

The speed of Azure NetApp Files is incredible. Instead of taking three to four hours to do a back and restore operation of a large database, we were able to conduct it in about 15 minutes.

I would like to see multi-zone redundancy so that I don't have to worry about it. I just back up my data to that one SMB share and I know that it's replicated to a different region.

The stability is rock solid. We had no issues with it during the migrations.

We were able to scale really quickly.

The technical support for this solution is excellent.

We were using backups to Azure blobs and it was taking far too long to do it. A Microsoft Cloud solution architect suggested Azure NetApp Files, and when we saw the time reduced from hours to minutes, we were sold on the technology.

The Azure service support did not influence our decision because we had an established relationship with Microsoft, so their recommendation is what influenced us.

The initial setup seemed very straightforward, kind of point and click.

The NetApp engineers worked with our Microsoft engineers, which worked with our team to both imagine and deploy this solution without our architecture within hours. The three of them worked great together.

While I cannot share dollar figures, I can share customer feedback. We received almost zero complaints because of our reduced downtime, which to us is a huge ROI.

Using Azure NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to definitely try it out. Benchmark it against their existing solution to see if it can improve their throughput.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are using it for some of the workloads related to SAP. We are also using it to store data related to videos coming from some of the cameras in the customer facilities.

We have been using its latest version.

Its security and ease of use are most valuable.

The main hurdle in promoting this solution is the price. Its price definitely requires an improvement. It is more expensive than other options, so customers go for a cheaper option.

We have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is definitely stable.

It is definitely scalable.

We have our own support team. We haven't had the need to take support from Microsoft for Azure NetApp Files. The information that we found on Microsoft portals has been enough for us to use the tool and give support to our customers.

Its price is double the price of the premium disks, which is the main reason why customers don't go for this solution in the end.

We recommend this solution to our customers because of its ease of use, availability, and security, but they don't usually go for it because of its price.

I would rate it at least a nine out of 10.

We use Azure NetApp Files mainly to collect events and for configuration.

Azure NetApp Files could improve by being more diverse to integrate better with other solutions, such as Splunk and the on-premise version. There are some use cases that are not covered natively by Azure. It is not the best solution because it is not external from the cloud which for me is the best type of solution.

The solution could be easy to use and the security could be better.

I have been using Azure NetApp Files for approximately three months.

Azure NetApp Files has been stable.

In our use, Azure NetApp Files has been scalable.

I have previously used Splunk and I prefer it over Azure NetApp Files. Splunk is more secure and it is important.

The deployment of Azure NetApp Files could be easier.

We have five technicians and two engineers that do the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

The price of Azure NetApp Files could be better.

This is not the best solution for our use case but there are aggressive politics to market this solution.

I rate Azure NetApp Files a seven out of ten.

I use the tool to optimize performance in file share services. 

I like the SnapMirror feature in Azure NetApp Files. It helps me create backups with snapshots and makes data recovery and compression. 

The main area for improvement is in the support ticket system. Since it's a SaaS platform, support tickets are managed by Microsoft or NetApp backend. This can sometimes lead to cross-functional challenges for organizations. 

I think they could improve their support a bit. Since it's a cross-organization setup, it would be helpful to have a collaboration team where I could directly raise a ticket with NetApp instead of going through Microsoft.

I have been using the product for five years. 

We can easily increase the size as needed, and the billing adjusts accordingly in the next billing cycle based on our consumption. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten. My company has around 500 users. 

I haven't had any issues with raising tickets. Since it's a SaaS platform, collaboration with Microsoft and NetApp is required. Raising a support ticket with Microsoft is easy, and then they handle any issues with NetApp. 

Positive

We have used traditional on-premises storage devices before. However, as those devices were nearing their end-of-life cycle, I proposed to management that we consider alternatives like Azure NetApp Files. Since most of our infrastructure was already on Microsoft, we opted for Azure NetApp Files and migrated our on-premises file storage to it.

Azure NetApp Files deployment is easy, especially if you have a storage background like mine. It's easier than setting up traditional databases. However, proper documentation and some experience with Unix can make the process easier. 

The deployment time for Azure NetApp Files can vary based on your configuration needs. Initially, you'll need to prepare the license. Then, setting up the actual implementation depends on factors like the configuration, setup requirements, number of users, performance benchmarks, and any additional features you want to configure. So, while it's generally easy to implement, the time it takes can vary depending on these factors.

If you use it effectively and know what you want to achieve, it can be cost-effective in terms of operational expenses compared to traditional NetApp devices.

In the cloud, pricing depends on how you manage it. It's not necessarily cheap, but it's all about optimizing charges and showing the cost back. So, it's more about managing the expenses rather than being inherently expensive or cheap.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten.