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 stability is very good. I've done destructive testing on it and never had any type of storage outages from it."
"Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on."
"The most valuable feature of the Pure Storage Flash Array is the blazing fast monitoring."
"Pure Storage is extremely reliable — it's never failed."
"The top-tier support and reliable storage are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Very stable; no worries about how much it can handle."
"Technical support has been amazing."
"The solution helps to simplify storage."
"The most valuable aspect is the use of solid-state storage drives instead of spinning drives."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the always-on data deduplication."
"Scale out is a differentiator for them, especially in the enterprise market. It's key for a lot of customers."
"The capacity that we're saving by using Kaminario's K2 is giving us a four-to-one ratio for our deduplication."
"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."
"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 increased performance is many times above our previous array performance in all metrics. Integration with vSphere features is also a definite plus."
"It impacts customer retention because of its overall ease. When you are running a business, where time is a factor, that is the biggest selling point. Things happen really rapidly, when they happen, and being able to say, "Yeah, we can get this up and running in a day, if you want," or even less time in some cases. Sometimes, that can be what makes or breaks our case."
"The most valuable features are the speed and performance for our transactional workloads for our databases."
"The biggest benefit of NetApp AFF is the performance."
"We had some customers who were running virtualization workloads on classical spinning disks. We implemented an AFF system, and they got a huge performance boost out of it because the latency of the SSDs is simply much lower. Actually, most customers benefit from the improved latency and performance from the AFF systems."
"This solution makes everything a lot faster. The time to move data around, boot and migrate VMs is much faster."
"The performance. The flash performance helps move data pretty fast."
"If the AutoSupport is well configured, then you need not to do a monitoring. You will get call and mail when any issue is completed."
"The most important features are the IOPS and the ease of the ONTAP manageability."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS."
"Part of our company works on Dell EMC because Pure Storage did not have synchronous applications when we were purchasing our products."
"The data reduction that we had initially anticipated when we bought Pure and we move over, is way lower than the expected reduction. It depends on the workloads, of course. But that has been a challenge at times."
"With scalability, I have run into a little problem with our last upgrade. There were some undocumented limitations to the number of drives that our controller could run on. So, instead of putting in a new data pack as we had anticipated, we had to keep adding and removing to get up to the capacity that we needed to be. What should have been a one day process (or a few hours) turned into a month and a half process."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"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."
"I would love to see a true one click upgrade solution. Right now, you have to click and schedule an appointment with Pure Storage to be able to upgrade. I would love for it to automatically download, install, and fall-over every controller as it updates."
"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 LDAP for the management panel; I've been notified they might be currently working on it."
"I would like them to improve the look of the product’s external casing and shelves."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The front panel of the drive shelf doesn't always seat firmly."
"A lot of the tools that are built into the stock, ONTAP operating system, instead of having to buy the add-ons and things."
"Stability could be improved."
"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."
"It has not reduced our data center costs. NetApp charges a pretty penny for their stuff."
"It would be better if they just improved the performance of the system."
"One minor improvement could be making scale-up solutions with AFF more cost-effective compared to scale-out options."
"Some of the graphical user interface changes in the later versions of NetApp have not been as good as the older ones, like in the 9.5 era."
"There is no direct storage attachment available. Most configurations require additional switches for data access."
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.