Most Helpful Review
Researched NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP but chose IBM Spectrum Scale: Storage system with good performance that has GPFS monitoring and NFS support
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Spectrum Scale vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
We are using it for monitoring all of our storage.
The most valuable feature is the ability to share files across different platforms.
GPFS monitoring is the best feature.
There is unified storage, which provides flexibility. It is set up perfectly for performance and provisioning. We are able to monitor everything using a separate application. It provides error and critical warnings that allow us to take immediate action through ONTAP. We are able to manage everything, log a case, and follow up with the support team, who can fix it. That is how it is unified.
The feature which I like the most is that it has the capabilities that the traditional storage system offers. It provides all the functionality. The deduplication and compression work exactly like ONTAP's traditional storage. So people who have experience with that find it very easy to manage.
The most valuable features are tiering to S3 and being able to turn it on and off, based on a schedule.
If you have a larger amount of data than normal in cloud, it is easy to provision and maintain. Waiting for the delivery of the controller, the configuration of enclosures, etc., all this stuff is eliminated compared to using on-premise.
Its features help us to have a backup of our volumes using the native technology of NetApp ONTAP. That way, we don't have to invest in other solutions for our backup requirement. Also, it helps us to replicate the data to another geographic location so that helps us to save on the costs of backup products.
They have very good support team who is very helpful. They will help you with every aspect of getting the deployment done.
One of the most valuable features is its similarity to the physical app, which makes it familiar. It's almost identical to a real NetApp, which means you can run all of the associated NetApp processes and services with it. Otherwise, we would definitely have to deploy some hardware on a site somewhere, which could be a challenge in terms of CapEx.
This solution provides a unified storage, no matter what kind of data you have.
Integration with other vendors is not available.
The pricing and licensing model for this solution are complex and it is sometimes difficult to explain it to customers.
The biggest problem is that it is not able to provide block storage.
We are getting a warning alert about not being able to connect to Cloud Manager when we log into it. The support has provided links, but this particular issue is not fixed yet.
When it comes to a critical or a read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the performance that some applications require, especially for SAP. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not fit there. It could be used for other databases, where the requirements are not so demanding, especially when it comes to write-latency.
I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively.
I would like NetApp to come up with an easier setup for the solution.
The automated deployment was a bit complex using the public APIs. When we had to deploy Cloud Volumes ONTAP on a regular basis using automation, It could be a bit of a challenge.
We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full.
There is room for improvement with the capacity. There's a very hard limit to how many disks you can have and how much space you can have. That is something they should work to fix, because it's limiting. Right now, the limit is about 360 terabytes or 36 disks.
The solution is very expensive. Due to its design, It's not cost-efficient versus doing a physical environment of similar size.
Pricing and Cost Advice
The licensing model is complex and depends on factors such as the number of processing cores and the amount of storage.
The licensing is based on the number of terabytes.
If a customer is only using, say, less than 10 terabytes, I don't think CVO would be a good option. A customer using at least 100 or 200 terabytes should get a reasonable price from NetApp.
Once we deploy the pay as you go model, we cannot convert this product as a BYOL model. This is a concern that we have.
They have a very good price which keeps our customers happy.
They give us a good price for CVO licenses. It is one of the reasons that we went with the product.
For NetApp it's about $20,000 for a single node and $30,000 for the HA.
Our licensing costs are folded into the hardware purchases and I have never differentiated between the two.
Cost is a big factor, because a lot of companies can't afford enterprise grade equipment all the time. They skimp where they can. I would recommend that they improve the cost.
Cloud is cloud. It's still expensive. Any good solution comes with a price tag. That's where we are looking to see how well we can manage our data in the cloud by trying to optimize the costs.
out of 41 in Software Defined Storage (SDS)
Average Words per Review
out of 5 in Cloud Software Defined Storage
Average Words per Review
Compared 35% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
|ONTAP Cloud, CVO, NetApp CVO|
|IBM Spectrum Scale is a cluster file system that provides concurrent access to a single file system or set of file systems from multiple nodes. The nodes can be SAN attached, network attached, a mixture of SAN attached and network attached, or in a shared nothing cluster configuration. This enables access to this common set of data to support a scale-out solution or to provide a high availability platform. IBM Spectrum Scale has many features beyond common data access including data replication, policy based storage management, and multi-site operations. You can create a cluster of AIX nodes, Linux nodes, Windows server nodes, or a mix of all three. IBM Spectrum Scale can run on virtualized instances providing common data access in environments, leverage logical partitioning, or other hypervisors. Multiple IBM Spectrum Scale clusters can share data within a location or across wide area network (WAN) connections.|
The leading enterprise-grade storage management solution, delivers secure, proven storage management services and supports up to a capacity of 368TB. Software service supports various use cases, such as: File shares and block-level storage serving NAS (NFS, SMB / CIFS) and SAN (iSCSI) Disaster Recovery, Backup, and Archive DevOps Databases (SQL, Oracle, NoSQL) Cloud Volumes ONTAP is offered in a standard single-node configuration or in a High Availability (HA) configuration.
Learn more about IBM Spectrum Scale
Take Control with Unified Cloud Storage
Sign up for a 30-day trial to see how Cloud Volumes ONTAP can help you optimize cloud storage costs and performance, while enhancing data enterprise-grade protection, security, and compliance - wherever your data lives.
Information Not Available
|Rohit, AdvacnedMD, D2L, Trinity Mirror, Eidos Media, WireStorm, Cordant Group, JFK Medical Center, ALD Automotive, Healthix, City of Baton Rouge, ON Semiconductor|
Financial Services Firm71%
Comms Service Provider14%
Computer Software Company14%
Computer Software Company52%
K 12 Educational Company Or School7%
Comms Service Provider7%
Comms Service Provider8%
Computer Software Company40%
Comms Service Provider9%