We performed a comparison between Kaminario K2 [EOL] and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."Pure Storage technology allowed us to automate tasks, reducing something which started as a 12-hour turnaround down to about 15 minutes."
"The solution has probably reduced my power use substantially."
"The solution offers amazing performance."
"We can store more for a cheaper price as opposed to paying for larger devices and larger rack spaces which get outdated sooner and which we'd have to change every two years. It simplifies storage for us."
"The deduplication in the array combined with its snap technologies allows the product to be remotely/manually controlled or scheduled."
"Simplicity and reliability are the most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray."
"We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"It provides a full feature set without separate licensing (deduplication, compression, snapshot, asynchronous replication, stable performance, etc.)."
"Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms would have had us license separately."
"The capacity that we're saving by using Kaminario's K2 is giving us a four-to-one ratio for our deduplication."
"Implementation of the solution is very simple."
"Ease of use: My installers - my administrators over the system - they love how easy and fast it is to install and spin up a LUN and get going."
"The most valuable aspect is the use of solid-state storage drives instead of spinning drives."
"The speed and, for us in particular in what we're doing, the data de-duplication."
"Latency is definitely the big key for us."
"We found AFF systems very competitive in terms of performance, storage efficiency, feature richness, and scalability."
"Its top-tier performance ranks as the most valuable aspect."
"It should scale far beyond our needs. I don't think we will ever hit the edge of it."
"It has improved performance for our enterprise applications, data analytics, and VMs. These improvements are a result of all-flash, throughput, reliability, compression, etc."
"Setting up storage for an application (storage provisioning) is quick and easy. Maybe a quarter of the time is now spent getting the application up and running, or even less."
"It's pretty scalable. It can scale up to 24 nodes."
"The Snapshot, SnapMirror, and SnapRestore functionalities."
"I actually did major projects where we used NetApp storage for some government agencies, and we were able to keep the storage where the government or the customer is able to own the storage while using AWS as their computing. That part was helpful to the customer."
"I would like a feature to integrate with external or cloud solutions. For example, if I want to use this storage for a backup from the cloud, I want to have integration with the cloud vendors, such as Microsoft, Oracles, or Amazon. It could be available as an API to allow seamless integration. Additionally, the solution could improve by having native integration with a cloud provider, such as VMware or Microsoft, this would reduce the need to use third-party solutions to complete the task."
"Had some issues with Purity not being entirely compatible with VMware ESXi."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level. Those issues are related to replication. They need to resolve those issues, which I have already highlighted to the Pure team. Additionally, there are some issues in the active cluster that could improve."
"I would like to see active replication. I know that it's available now but I haven't tried it yet. I hope that it works."
"A minor issue that comes to mind is that, every once in a while, a hard drive will go bad."
"We haven't seen ROI yet."
"Its price could be cheaper. It is not the cheapest one out there, but I'm not directly involved in the figures and negotiations."
"We would like to integrate it more with our backup solutions."
"I think it should have better performance with small files. With big data, its performance is top notch, but it is difficult to load small files."
"Access to technical support should be improved for our region. Technical support is good, but they're very hard to access."
"Improved scale and budget planning with flexibility of the solution for budget needs and efficiency for growth with the great optimization ratio due to the nature of our use."
"I would like them to improve the look of the product’s external casing and shelves."
"Some of the nice to haves for us, in terms of today, would be VVols but again, it’s not a critical feature."
"I would love to see capacity on its DRAM. I know it's not cost effective for them to do it, but I think that it could be a big differentiator and was a big differentiator from the beginning."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"The front panel of the drive shelf doesn't always seat firmly."
"The ONTAP S3 implementation is not feature-complete as compared to StorageGRID. We had to move our lakeFS instance from ONTAP S3 based on AFF to StorageGRID."
"It's a little behind on security. It's starting to get into multi-factor authentication, they just started to introduce it but not for all products."
"I would like to see more frequent updates at a faster pace."
"I would like to see an improvement in the high availability of the NFS and CIFS sharing during upgrade and patching; this would help to avoid downtime."
"Tech support is a place where there is room to improve the product experience. The response time when they are busy is not very good."
"The initial setup has a lot more steps in it than are probably necessary for a base deployment, unlike other vendors where it's more straightforward. It could be a little bit more streamlined."
"ZAPI is kind of difficult to use. You know, it's SOAP-like, it's not really SOAP. I would like to see it more of a REST-based JSON, instead of XML."
"There are some bugs with the solution which need to be fixed."
Earn 20 points
Kaminario K2 [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews. Kaminario K2 [EOL] is rated 8.8, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Kaminario K2 [EOL] writes "Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms license separately". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Kaminario K2 [EOL] is most compared with , whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash 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.