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 feature is its data reduction."
"We were actually able to do multiple upgrades, including head upgrades and moving between the platforms, M20 and M50, over the years. We have never once lost a ping and have never had an outage due to an OS upgrade or a complete head upgrade."
"The connections are a lot faster than what we had in the past. One InfiniBand does what we did on all of our Fibre Channels."
"It worked flawlessly."
"Pure is simple to set up and manage on a day-to-day basis."
"Their REST API is wonderful, well-documented, and easy to use."
"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."
"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."
"Latency is definitely the big key for us."
"Implementation of the solution is very simple."
"Scale out is a differentiator for them, especially in the enterprise market. It's key for a lot of customers."
"Inline compression"
"Logic/software management"
"The capacity that we're saving by using Kaminario's K2 is giving us a four-to-one ratio for our deduplication."
"The speed and, for us in particular in what we're doing, the data de-duplication."
"The GUI is very straightforward and easy to use."
"It also helps to accelerate databases in our environment. First of all, there is the reliability of things staying online and the small response time as well, from the MetroCluster, for all of the data that we're serving; and the applications are talking to the MetroCluster. It provides a very fast response time."
"It's pretty scalable. It can scale up to 24 nodes."
"Over the past 18 years, it has been extremely easy to upgrade to newer products and technology. We can upgrade as we move along. So, we have been able to keep up with the newest technology with zero downtime."
"I would say the consistency with the ONTAP versions and the speed and performance from the flash."
"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."
"I like the ability to snapshot, and the cloning features are valuable to us as well. I like that I can quickly and efficiently snapshot the data and move it to wherever I need to locally or in the cloud. Also, I know that when I take the snapshot that all of the data will be there and that it will be usable when I need to use it."
"Speed, reliability, ease of use are the most valuable features."
"It is stable. In my three years working with the storage, I haven't seen any issues with our NetApp product."
"The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them."
"The support for NFS protocols right out-of-the-box need improvement. I'm used to other storage vendors who have NFS support right out-of-the-box, and Pure Storage doesn't seem to have anything."
"It was a little costly. The price was ultimately higher than both of the other solutions that we evaluated. I'd say that's the only downside."
"We would like to be able to connect to data tape for backup, specifically to the LTO backups."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"The internal garbage collection process has been fixed recently in some OS updates so it is more efficient but that could be just a little better."
"The file functionality could be better."
"The price could be better."
"The system currently has a 15TB LUN size limit and that snapshots need to be scheduled through script API instead of the GUI."
"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."
"The management graphical interface needs more improvement."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"Some of the nice to haves for us, in terms of today, would be VVols but again, it’s not a critical feature."
"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."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"It used to give us the volume where LANs should be placed when we created a LAN in the older version. However, in the newer version of ONTAP, it does not give where to place the LAN in the volume. So, that liberty has been taken away. If that was there again, it would be very good."
"We don't have many issues related to the appliance itself. In terms of the OS, we do get some hiccups here and there."
"Going forward, I would like more performance analytics on it, on the area itself, instead of using some other tool."
"The total cost of ownership has increased a little."
"The certification classes are good, but they don't cover enough of the material, and the exams only test on what is covered in class."
"It would be better if they just improved the performance of the system."
"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."
"In the current atmosphere, private cloud is improving. NetApp AFF needs to provide flexibility in terms of hardware and capital expense."
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.