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."The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"Pure Storage FlashArray's overall speed is its most valuable feature."
"Because of the encryption, we have different storage and the encryption can go over both."
"The sales and executive support have been outstanding compared to the rest of the market... My upgrade paths have been simple on the Pure... It's a lot simpler to implement and a lot simpler to manage."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are simplicity, ease of use, and dashboard management."
"It comes with a large number of features out-of-the-box, which makes it easy for us to see problems and manage capacity."
"The best feature is consistently lower latency, even when IOPS crank up to over 75K. The product maintains submillisecond response time, which is incredible."
"It helps to simplify storage. For most of our customers, when they move to Pure Storage, storage becomes an afterthought."
"The speed and, for us in particular in what we're doing, the data de-duplication."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the always-on data deduplication."
"Data reduction and snapshot abilities: Smaller footprint in the datacenter (lower cost for power, cooling, etc.)."
"The most valuable aspect is the use of solid-state storage drives instead of spinning drives."
"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."
"Latency is definitely the big key for us."
"Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms would have had us license separately."
"Other manufacturers claim simplicity. In fact, frankly, they do have an advantage in that regard, however, they don't have the functionality. If you were to compare one of those products to NetApp, head to head from a feature perspective, NetApp would wind up in the top 10."
"AFF has opened our eyes in a different light of how storage value works. In the past, we looked at it more as just a container where we could just dump our customer dBms and let the customers use it in terms of efficiency. Today, to be able to replicate that data to a different location, use that data to recover your environment or be able to have the flexibility with the solution and data. These are things which piqued our interest. It's something that we're willing to provide as a solution to our customers."
"When we move to all-flash, our response times were reduced to microseconds."
"Performance is excellent. In fact, it's so fast that we're not really even taxing it all that much."
"It is a stable solution."
"The performance of NetApp AFF allows our developers and researches to run models and their tests within a single workday instead of spreading out across multiple workdays."
"Multi-protocol is the most valuable feature for us. It does everything in one system: sifts, EBES, ISCSI, and fiber channel. Other systems don't do all that."
"AFF has improved my organization because we now have better performance. We can scale up and we can create servers a lot faster now. With the storage that we had, it used to take a lot longer, but now we can provide the business what they need a lot faster."
"It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that."
"They have a product, FlashBlade, which is their object storage integration, and that's something that we haven't integrated with yet. This might be an area for additional focus as it would play into scalability, because the very nature of object storage is that it's infinitely scalable."
"It is way in excess of what we need. If anything, we could see a bit more speed. I'm just comparing it with what some of my colleagues who are implementing their own systems do."
"I would rate this solution an eight because we have had outages. The commit times went very high in the database. The whole array went down so our customers were down for around eight hours. This was a very big outage which could have been our fault because we didn't do the upgrade in time."
"I would like to see some improvements on the FlashBlade side around the CIFS space support. I am not super familiar with all the different NAS protocols that they run on their box, but there could be some improvements made on SMB CIFS side."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"We need to add more storage in Pure Storage FlashArray with the cluster mode activated for us to have better performance."
"In the next release of this solution, we would like to see automated copy data management for SQL Server."
"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 like them to improve the look of the product’s external casing and shelves."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"Access to technical support should be improved for our region. Technical support is good, but they're very hard to access."
"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."
"I would like to see LDAP for the management panel; I've been notified they might be currently working on it."
"The management graphical interface needs more improvement."
"There is no direct storage attachment available. Most configurations require additional switches for data access."
"In terms of improvement, the support could be a little better."
"NetApp AFF could improve SAN storage because it feels as if it was not put together at the beginning, it functions as an afterthought. Additionally, the cloud features could be more mature."
"There are little things that need improvement. For example, if you are setting up a SnapMirror through the GUI, you are forced to change the destination name of the volume, and we like to keep the volume names the same."
"We would like to have more behavioral reporting."
"With some of the larger clusters being able to do a patch upgrade is helping. They still take three, four hours by the time you get the night started, finish things up, do the upgrade."
"They should provide easier integration with multiple systems."
"The upgrade process could be a lot quicker, but it's still good as it is. The failovers and things like that are harder than expected."
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 Unity XT, Dell PowerStore, 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.