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."We like the speed. It's very low latency. In virtualization, you can mask lots of problems, and even in code you can mask lots of problems, with low latency. It's just pure speed and low latency."
"It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use."
"This solution is very scalable."
"The compression and deduplication features help to make the best use of the capacity."
"The tool is simple and easy to use. It has neat features like protection from device removal. Moreover, you can undo the deletes. The solution is easy to work with and not as complicated as CAC"
"We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"The back-end data reporting for Pure Storage is phenomenal. The data that you can see on the performance of your customers' array, so you can be proactive about upgrades or enhancements, and is a phenomenal tool to have access to as a partner. I haven't seen this type of stuff out of anything of the other storage systems."
"Technical support is excellent. I've had very good responses from technical support. We had a couple of cases where we needed support. Some of the communications were purely over email and some has been an actual call to the service desk."
"Implementation of the solution is very simple."
"Logic/software management"
"The increased performance is many times above our previous array performance in all metrics. Integration with vSphere features is also a definite plus."
"The most valuable aspect is the use of solid-state storage drives instead of spinning drives."
"Scale out is a differentiator for them, especially in the enterprise market. It's key for a lot of customers."
"Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms would have had us license separately."
"The GUI is very straightforward and easy to use."
"The ratio between the physical storage and the storage we use is very high."
"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."
"The most valuable features of the solution are speed, performance, and reliability."
"NetApp AFF is very good at cleaning up your storage."
"It has a good interface. Its configuration and flexibility are also good."
"Most of our business-critical systems are provisioned from the NetApp AFF system. Compared to others, we have a minimal latency. Configuring the DR for high availability or migrating the volumes from one box to another is pretty easy with NetApp AFF."
"I think that the DR applications are the most valuable, including Snapshots and SnapMirror."
"We are using the AQoS operating system, which allows us to get a lot more out of our AFF systems."
"It's very stable. It's always there when we need it. With the Dual Controller, if one drops out, the other one comes right online. We don't use any iSCSI so there is a little bit of a latency break but, over the NFS, we don't notice that switch-on. We can do maintenance in the middle of the day, literally rip a whole controller out of the chassis, and do what we need to do with it."
"Its price needs improvement. Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution."
"We haven't seen ROI yet."
"Some services could be inserted directly into the SAN, so Pure Storage could complete with the HyperFlex."
"Beyond a certain amount of petabytes, you have to have a separate system. Basically, it's not infinitely scalable."
"We do have an issue with the vCenter integration. Pure Storage says it has a lot of free space, but vCenter says its completely full. This is because their dedupes are saved as space, but Vcenter still detects the disk as completely full. So, we do have an issue with that."
"We've had it in place for about a year and a half and have had zero complaints, other than that box-to-box replication is not encrypted."
"Having something native in the Pure Storage ecosystem would make it integrated and in one single company, and we wouldn't have to work with multiple organizations."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"The system currently has a 15TB LUN size limit and that snapshots need to be scheduled through script API instead of the GUI."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"The management graphical interface needs more improvement."
"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."
"Some of the nice to haves for us, in terms of today, would be VVols but again, it’s not a critical feature."
"I'm hoping to see Active Directory integration. Right now, you still have to use a local admin account to log in and manage everything."
"This is an expensive solution that could be cheaper."
"It has not reduced our data center costs. NetApp charges a pretty penny for their stuff."
"NetApp AFF needs to focus more on block storage. It has to focus on high-end, performance-driven applications."
"I really don't have anything to ask for in this regard, because we're not really pushing the envelope on any of our use cases. NetApp is really staying out ahead of all of our needs. I believe that there were firmware issues. I think it was just a mismatch of things that were going on. It could have possibly been something in the deployment process that wasn't done exactly right."
"In the current atmosphere, private cloud is improving. NetApp AFF needs to provide flexibility in terms of hardware and capital expense."
"Another issue is that for smaller customers, NetApp doesn't have enough disk sizes. You begin with a 980-gigabyte disk and the next size is 3.8 terabytes. There aren't any disk sizes in between. Competitors have more choices in disk sizes."
"Going forward, I would like improvement in the response latencies, capacity size, cache, and controller size."
"We have been seeing some challenges around the application layer implementation. We are having some teething problems now with the cooperation between the application layer and backups to things, like SnapCenter. This may be a question of product maturity."
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.