Most Helpful Review
The footproot of the arrays is significantly smaller while the application response time has approved
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Things that have been really useful, of course, are the clustering features and being able to stay online during failovers and code upgrades; and just being able to seamlessly do all sorts of movement of data without having to disrupt end-users' ability to get to those files. And we can take advantage of new shelves, new hardware, upgrade in place. It's kind of magic when it comes to doing those sorts of things.
The ease of use, the SnapMirror capabilities, the cloning, and the efficiencies are all good features.
We are using the AQoS operating system, which allows us to get a lot more out of our AFF systems.
The most valuable features are the ease of administration and configuration, as well as the speed of deployment.
The most important features are the IOPS and the ease of the ONTAP manageability.
Before we implemented AFF, Oracle was running on a traditional storage spindle and at a very low speed with high latency, and the database was not running very well. After we converted from the spinning disk to the all-flash array, it was at least four times faster to access the volume than before.
The most valuable features of the solution are speed, performance, and reliability.
The most valuable feature is speed.
This is one of the most stable, high-end solutions in this area.
The most valuable feature is that you can use it with all deployment models.
It is the most stable high-end solution in this area.
The high performance of flash storage is especially valuable to us.
This is one of the most reliable and dependable products on the market.
I am happy about the storage system and availability.
It's a state of the art solution in storage systems. High-availability and performance are the strongest aspects of these machines.
One of the best features is the support, which is excellent.
Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution.
The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly.
What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate.
The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability.
The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use.
It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights.
The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance.
One of the areas that the product can improve is definitely in the user interface. We don't use it for SAN, but we've looked at using it for SAN and the SAN workflows are really problematic for my admins, and they just don't like doing SAN provisioning on that app. That really needs to change if we're going to adopt it and actually consider it to be a strong competitor versus some of the other options out there.
There are little things that need improvement. For example, if you are setting up a SnapMirror through the GUI, you are forced to change the destination name of the volume, and we like to keep the volume names the same.
The quality of technical support has dwindled over time and needs to be improved.
On the fiber channel side, there is a limit of sixteen terabytes on each line, and we would like to see this raised because we are having to use some other products.
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.
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.
Tech support is a place where there is room to improve the product experience. The response time when they are busy is not very good.
The price of NVMe storage is very expensive.
The interface should be simplified and made easier to use.
The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage.
The installation procedure it a bit difficult, because it is a high-end solution. With this type of product, the original company is interested in doing the setup for customers in the area, but because of sanctions we were not able to get support in our area. We faced many issued trying to learn to run this product.
In terms of new features, I would be interested to see deduplication added in their next release.
In the next version I would like to see additional features like artificial intelligence and an increase in the amount of data it can store.
In the next version I would like to see more intelligence.
The user experience is pretty bad in Hitachi. A lot of mandatory tasks take a long time to work through.
In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems.
In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified.
Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services.
The UI for this solution needs to be improved.
I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution.
In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models.
We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC.
We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency.
Pricing and Cost Advice
It's expensive. it's in the hundreds of thousands. It's beneficial, but at times, I feel compared to other vendors, we are paying a premium for the licensing that other vendors include.
The price to performance ratio with NetApp is unmatched by any other vendor right now.
The pricing is not a lot considering what you get and it bundles hardware and licensing.
Comparing this solution to others it may seem expensive, but the price to performance for NetApp is greater.
We would like it to be free.
One of the reasons we like this solution is that all of the features are included with the one license.
We don't like the cost. We would like to buy more.
It definitely reduces costs because it simply takes less power to run these systems. While the SSDs don't take power, they are in general very big right now. So, the running cost has decreased for a lot of our customers.
When you are looking for high-end solutions such as this, price is less important than stability and availability.
This is an expensive solution.
This solution is cheaper than Dell EMC VMAX. When you are looking for a high-end solution, price matters, but availability and stability are more important than the price.
Pricing could be better, because the cost is very high.
I would like to see better pricing and more discounts.
They can tout the functionality and cutting edge technology that they have, but that's where the price tag comes in. The cost is high, but I think as they grow their business and get more customers that it will probably go down a little bit.
As far as the licensing costs, everything is included in the license.
Our licensing fees are $500,000+ USD.
With VMware, we pay $300,000 annually.
We pay approximately $50,000 USD per year in licensing fees.
With Pure Storage, we would like to continue seeing price reductions with flash storage. I don't think we're any different than anybody else when we continue to look to the industry for price reductions of both NVMe and traditional SSD storage. We would like to see these prices continue to decline and erode, even displacing large spinning disks.
Compared 29% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 68% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Also Known As
|NetApp All Flash FAS, NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS||Pure FlashArray//X NVMe, Pure FlashArray//X, FlashArray//X|
NetApp AFF8000 All Flash FAS systems combine all-flash performance with unified data management from flash to disk to cloud. Leverage the Data Fabric to move data securely across your choice of clouds—enabled by Cloud ONTAP™ and NetApp Private Storage for Cloud. Plus, you get the industry’s most efficient and comprehensive integrated data protection suite, on premises or in the cloud.
RETHINK YOUR DEFINITION OF SPEED AND PERFORMANCE
With adaptive, guaranteed data reduction and a 100% data-availability guarantee, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F series helps you tackle complicated business challenges. Hitachi Data Systems (HDS) VSP F series delivers up to 4.8M IOPS with sub-millisecond response times.
Pure Storage FlashArray//X is the world’s first enterprise-class, all-NVMe flash storage array. It represents a new class of storage – shared accelerated storage, which is a term coined by Gartner – that delivers major breakthroughs in performance, simplicity, and consolidation.
Learn more about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS)
Learn more about Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series
Learn more about Pure FlashArray X NVMe
|Acibadem Healthcare Group, AmTrust Financial Services, Citrix Systems, DWD, Mantra Group||Turkcell, Owens Corning, Region Nord, Net Credit Financial Group (NFC Group), Russian Railways||Fremont Bank, Judson ISD, The Nielsen Company|
Financial Services Firm13%
Computer Software Company38%
Comms Service Provider10%
Computer Software Company53%
Comms Service Provider10%
Computer Software Company42%
Comms Service Provider8%
Marketing Services Firm7%
Financial Services Firm6%
See our list of best All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors.