NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) Review

It has a very fast response time, although it needs higher IOPS.


What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of AFF is that it has a very fast response time. This is a very crucial performance for us.

What needs improvement?

It needs higher IOPS. Pure Storage is better with that.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using it for two months.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

We had no issues with deployment.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It hasn't crashed, so it's been stable so far.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It scales to our needs.

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

Customer service is good.

Technical Support:

Technical support is very good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were running on NFS.

How was the initial setup?

The reason the initial setup was straightforward is because we've got clustered Data ONTAP on their hybrid system, so we know how to do the installation on our own.

What about the implementation team?

We implemented it through NetApp.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at Pure Storage, but only on paper.

What other advice do I have?

It depends on your workload, as you have to add an SSD, so take it only if you need it because the whole thing is expensive. On the other side, if you do need this solution and it does not meet your expectations, you should change your settings, and move from NFS to fibre channel.

**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
More NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) reviews from users
...who work at a Healthcare Company
...who compared it with Pure Storage FlashArray
Add a Comment
Guest