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 perfect. The reliability is 100% and the latency is always lower than 1 millisecond."
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"There was a dramatic improvement in operating costs just as a result of the environmentals and space, let alone the cost of the unit itself."
"Pure is simple to set up and manage on a day-to-day basis."
"FlashArray has many valuable features. It's very user-friendly and it has high availability, so there is comparatively less downtime. During maintenance, there is no shutdown procedure, so you can directly power off the Array and manage the shutdown process without any data loss, which is a unique feature. Managing replication and data migration is also very easy."
"It has improved my organization because now have lower latency, we get fewer complaints from customers, and we see a constant response time."
"The most valuable feature is how it simplifies the management of the SAN."
"What I like most about this solution, is the speed, resiliency and scalability."
"Inline compression"
"The capacity that we're saving by using Kaminario's K2 is giving us a four-to-one ratio for our deduplication."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the always-on data deduplication."
"Implementation of the solution is very simple."
"The ratio between the physical storage and the storage we use is very high."
"Data reduction and snapshot abilities: Smaller footprint in the datacenter (lower cost for power, cooling, etc.)."
"Latency is definitely the big key for us."
"Scale out is a differentiator for them, especially in the enterprise market. It's key for a lot of customers."
"The most valuable features for AFF are the speed, durability, back up, the time, the workloads that we are using currently are much faster than what they used to be. We're getting a lot of different things out of All Flash."
"The Snapshot, SnapMirror, and SnapRestore functionalities."
"The speed of data retrieval is the most valuable feature. We mostly use it for our SAP database and we are getting good IO from the hard drive."
"Setup was simple and easy."
"All of the features are good. With Flash, we have high-performing databases. Having that kind of performance has been valuable."
"The most valuable feature is speed."
"I like how easy it is to discover an issue and either resolve that issue or fine-tune that app to premium support to find that resolution."
"We found AFF systems very competitive in terms of performance, storage efficiency, feature richness, and scalability."
"The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them."
"They have a product, FlashBlade, which is their object storage integration, and that's something that we haven't integrated with yet. This might be an area for additional focus as it would play into scalability, because the very nature of object storage is that it's infinitely scalable."
"It needs to improve its price."
"As long as they always improve on IOPS speed, that's all we're really looking for. The faster the storage can be the more we can do speed of application and speed of use."
"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."
"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."
"The internal garbage collection process has been fixed recently in some OS updates so it is more efficient but that could be just a little better."
"The higher education moves slowly. We are still looking forward to implementing the full list of existing features."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"Access to technical support should be improved for our region. Technical support is good, but they're very hard to access."
"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 system currently has a 15TB LUN size limit and that snapshots need to be scheduled through script API instead of the GUI."
"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."
"Improved scale and budget planning with flexibility of the solution for budget needs and efficiency for growth with the great optimization ratio due to the nature of our use."
"I would like to see LDAP for the management panel; I've been notified they might be currently working on it."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"The product should be more competitive and come up with additional features. They should keep the client always in mind and as the top priority. This would be the best way to compete with other solutions."
"NetApp AFF could improve SAN storage because it feels as if it was not put together at the beginning, it functions as an afterthought. Additionally, the cloud features could be more mature."
"I would like to see if they could move the virtual storage machines. They have integrated a DR, so you can back to your DR, but there's no automated way to failover and failback. It's all manual. I'd like to see it all automated."
"The initial setup has a lot more steps in it than are probably necessary for a base deployment, unlike other vendors where it's more straightforward. It could be a little bit more streamlined."
"I don't like the newest GUI. It needs more options. Some features have been removed. Oversight is not as good in the new GUI compared to the previous version. Though, it might be something that we just need to get used to."
"They should provide easier integration with multiple systems."
"Additional performance, additional data efficiencies, that's what everybody wants right now."
"We have had customers asking about S3 support for a while now. I heard that is coming in one of the next versions. So, I would like to see S3 targeted support on the FAS system."
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.