Compare Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS)
Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series is ranked 18th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 2 reviews while NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is ranked 4th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 74 reviews. Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series is rated 8.6, while NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series writes "Meets requirements for hosting our Virtual Machines in three data centers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) writes "Good price to performance ratio, no latency, and simple to use". Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series is most compared with Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, HPE 3PAR Flash Storage and Dell EMC Unity, whereas NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is most compared with Dell EMC Unity, Pure Storage FlashArray and HPE 3PAR Flash Storage. See our Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) report.
Most Helpful Review | |||
Use Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series? Share your opinion. |
| ||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and other solutions. Updated: March 2020. 406,860 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
The solution is very easy to troubleshoot. It's one of the most valuable features. It also doesn't take long to deploy and normally it comes with a three-year warranty. This solution is good for virtualization and meets the need for CPU and RAM requirements. | 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. |
Cons | |
Usually, when a part fails, we have to replace it and it takes a while. It would be better if the part could be available locally here in Kenya so we don't have to wait so long to repair the solution. In the next release, I would like to see support for Hyper-converged infrastructure. | 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. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
The pricing for this solution is good compared to HP or Dell EMC. | 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. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions are best for your needs. 406,860 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 707 Comparisons 515 Reviews 2 Average Words per Review 322 Avg. Rating 8.5 | Views 25,771 Comparisons 17,102 Reviews 72 Average Words per Review 748 Avg. Rating 9.0 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 77% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time.  Compared 5% of the time. | Compared 31% of the time.  Compared 20% of the time. Compared 9% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| ThinkSystem DE Series | NetApp All Flash FAS, NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS |
Learn | |
| Lenovo | NetApp |
Overview | |
The DE All-Flash Series delivers the performance of more than 2,000 15k rpm HDDs, yet requires only 2% of the rack space, power, and cooling. Because it consumes 98% less space and power, DE Series can significantly improve the overall efficiency of your IT operations while continuing to meet your performance requirements. | 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. |
Offer | |
Learn more about Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series | Learn more about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) |
Sample Customers | |
Information Not Available | Acibadem Healthcare Group, AmTrust Financial Services, Citrix Systems, DWD, Mantra Group |
Top Industries | |
No Data Available | Healthcare Company16% Financial Services Firm13% Energy/Utilities Company9% Retailer8% Software R&D Company27% Manufacturing Company18% Comms Service Provider10% Financial Services Firm7% |
Company Size | |
No Data Available | Small Business12% Midsize Enterprise12% Large Enterprise76% Small Business23% Midsize Enterprise6% Large Enterprise70% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
406,860 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series Reviews, NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) Reviews, and our list of Best All-Flash Storage Arrays Companies.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.