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."Data deduplication features make it easier to manage storage and forecast growth."
"Before we used Pure Storage it took 93 days of employees who run the database to back up and restore databases. The scale of deployment basically went from several days to a few minutes."
"The stability of Pure Storage is very very good."
"Its array houses our entire production environment."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are the management view of the solutions, ease of provision, and deprovision, it is fantastic."
"My rating of Pure Storage is a ten out of ten because of the price for performance and footprint - the overall value."
"Because of the encryption, we have different storage and the encryption can go over both."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are management and administration user-friendliness, provisioning, and performance."
"The speed and, for us in particular in what we're doing, the data de-duplication."
"It provides a full feature set without separate licensing (deduplication, compression, snapshot, asynchronous replication, stable performance, etc.)."
"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."
"Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms would have had us license separately."
"Latency is definitely the big key for us."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the always-on data deduplication."
"The ratio between the physical storage and the storage we use is very high."
"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."
"The NVMe flash cache is the most useful feature. It lowers transactional speed even more."
"My favorite part is all-flash solid drives. All of my applications are running on an all-flash array. Before, we used to get too many severity tickets on performance, but as soon as we migrated everything to an all-flash array, our critical applications are at top performance."
"It simplifies data management for NAS environments with its ease of management, ease of share creation, and Active IQ feature. These features are good overall. It helps us manage data quickly and sufficiently. Also, compression features, like dedupe, give us a good ratio."
"The most valuable feature is speed."
"One of the main features that differentiate AFF from the FAS products, or some other technologies used, is the footprint of these arrays are significantly smaller than the traditional ones. Also, the performance that you get to these new arrays is really significant. You can see a huge difference there. By switching to it, we can achieve more storage performance and efficiency as well as in the long run lower down some of the TCOs due to reducing the footprint."
"The benefits of being on AFF are the phenomenal speed at which we're able to ingest data and index it, and the IOPS."
"Deduplication"
"A year ago they promised that they would be able to read through the database encryption with more metric and they have not delivered on that patch, which is significant because it gives us back so much more storage room. We want to be able to read through the encryption."
"The one major gripe I have is that there is no snapshotting enabled by default on the SAN."
"The backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"I would like to see them lower the costs."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"I would love for them to have a hyper-converged solution."
"The way Pure Storage does the controller storage warranty or replacement has been an issue for some people who just replace the controllers every couple of years, and that's where some of the confusion with pricing and support has come in. They should be clear on the way the controller replacements happen, as it is important to know whether or not you can get a good return on them, because it can be a little confusing."
"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."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"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."
"I would like to see them work with Cisco, so it comes off the FIs, instead of having to go through my 10-gig network."
"I would like them to improve the look of the product’s external casing and shelves."
"I would like to see LDAP for the management panel; I've been notified they might be currently working on it."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"As for AFF itself, I don't have any suggestions of what I would be excited about seeing. I think that adding the support for the rest of APIs to AFF would be super handy. I think it's something that we've been waiting for for a while which would be fantastic."
"Going forward, I would like improvement in the response latencies, capacity size, cache, and controller size."
"The SRA stuff that intergrades with SRM is a problem point. It's a pain point. The support personnel aren't always knowledgeable on that product. At times, they are not even aware what product is supported and what is not, when one has been deprecated and there is a new one out, and what the bug fixes of the newer version are."
"The monitor and performance need improvement. Right now we are using the active IQ OnCommand Unified Manager, but we also have to do the Grafana to do the performance and I hope we will be able to see the improvement of the active IQ in terms of the performance graph. It should also be more detailed."
"I have experienced slow responses several times, if the ticket has only been opened in portal."
"I would like to see aggregate level encryption in the next release. This is critical."
"Additional performance, additional data efficiencies, that's what everybody wants right now."
"Stability could be improved."
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.