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 initial setup was really straight forward."
"At this point, I don't know anything that they could provide in a better way."
"It has improved my organization because now have lower latency, we get fewer complaints from customers, and we see a constant response time."
"Very stable; no worries about how much it can handle."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are management and administration user-friendliness, provisioning, and performance."
"It's simple, powerful, and ready to use."
"It's easy to use, and the maintenance upgrades to get free controllers work really well."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is the complete set of functions it provides."
"Built-in snapshot support gives us SAN-side functionality most other platforms would have had us license separately."
"It provides a full feature set without separate licensing (deduplication, compression, snapshot, asynchronous replication, stable performance, etc.)."
"Logic/software management"
"The ratio between the physical storage and the storage we use is very high."
"Scale out is a differentiator for them, especially in the enterprise market. It's key for a lot of customers."
"Latency is definitely the big key for us."
"The GUI is very straightforward and easy to use."
"The speed and, for us in particular in what we're doing, the data de-duplication."
"The speed, inline deduplication, and compression are really nice. It's also just easy to manage. We use Snapshot and SnapMirror offsite, which give us some good recovery options."
"AFF works well for VMware storage."
"The most valuable feature of NetApp AFF is the reputation of the company."
"Technical support is good."
"The most valuable features are the ease of administration and configuration, as well as the speed of deployment."
"It's helping to leverage data. The storage is being utilized to implement larger, complex file sizes."
"Its consistent stability is one of the things that I like, and the performance is also very good."
"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."
"Going forward, don't complicate things for the customers."
"The initial setup of the product is complex."
"I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for uses that we needed."
"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."
"I'd like to see a move towards individual VMs for what the performance of each VM is in a VD infrastructure. I can see the overall volume, but I would love to see things in a more granular level on the VM side."
"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."
"From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable."
"In some cases, we get into very in-depth conversations around movement of specific data and, what's more, chunk sizes. The documentation lacked any description or information on that."
"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."
"The system currently has a 15TB LUN size limit and that snapshots need to be scheduled through script API instead of the GUI."
"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 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'm hoping to see Active Directory integration. Right now, you still have to use a local admin account to log in and manage everything."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"The management graphical interface needs more improvement."
"There are no pNFS with VMware VVOLs."
"AFF could introduce different subscriptions on the platform."
"We currently use some thin provisioning for our planning system, but we will probably move away from thin provisioning because our Solaris planning system actually has some issues with the thin provisioning and way Solaris handles it, since Solaris uses a ZFS file system. The ZFS file system doesn't like the thin provisioning changing things and it brings systems down, which is bad."
"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."
"After the three-year prepay, the extended warranty is a little expensive."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with the user interface. There are a few things that cannot be done in the GUI. We do a lot of things through the CLI, but that's grown out of a lack of ability to do them in the GUI. An example is QTrees. You can manage them within the GUI, but the GUI is missing a few options."
"The bad part about having scalability is the expense. It is currently extremely expensive, to be able to scale so fast on flash."
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.