We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System 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."I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is."
"Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on."
"The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage."
"It helps to simplify storage because it has an easy front-end to access everything."
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"Their support system has insight into errors on our SAN fabric that we can't see. They've brought attention to and raised awareness for us about things that we couldn't see, when we were experiencing problems."
"It is fast and reliable. It works."
"It is easy to deploy and it's all-flash, so it's very fast."
"There are many reports accessing the applications. We receive them very quickly. We used to wait a long time for them. Now, you just need to wait a moment."
"The most valuable features of the solution are speed, performance, and reliability."
"Easier to manage with the clustered system and everything with the newest ONTAP 9."
"The most valuable features are the low latency and high-performance."
"It is stable. In my three years working with the storage, I haven't seen any issues with our NetApp product."
"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."
"I'm from Germany, so we have lots of metro clusters. The ability to have two sides that are redundant across hundreds or thousands of kilometers is critical for our customers. We have several hundred customers with metro cluster systems, so that is one of the best features."
"The newest version of ONTAP has a bit of a learning curve because you need to learn where things are to find them. It is not impossible, but when you are accustomed to the older version of ONTAP, it just takes a bit getting used to it, but it is about the same as before."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"I would like to see a Nagios monitoring plugin which watches the health and performance of the system. The only one available just checks volume capacity."
"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."
"We did have one hiccup with the integration of vCenter. When we were installing Pure Storage, we were using vCenter 6.7, which defaults to the HTML5 Web Client. The current plugin for Pure Storage doesn't show up in that client at all. You have to go and use the legacy FlexFlash client to see the Pure Storage plugin in vCenter."
"Pure Storage support could be a little better."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level. Those issues are related to replication. They need to resolve those issues, which I have already highlighted to the Pure team. Additionally, there are some issues in the active cluster that could improve."
"We do have an issue with the vCenter integration. Pure Storage says it has a lot of free space, but vCenter says its completely full. This is because their dedupes are saved as space, but Vcenter still detects the disk as completely full. So, we do have an issue with that."
"As partners, we should have the option to download the software, rather than have to go back through Pure to obtain it."
"The one major gripe I have is that there is no snapshotting enabled by default on the SAN."
"There needs to be compatibility with upgraded applications. We don't want the system to be upgraded, but not have backwards compatible to existing applications."
"I would like to see aggregate level encryption in the next release. This is critical."
"The only downside to NetApp AFF is its price."
"It used to give us the volume where LANs should be placed when we created a LAN in the older version. However, in the newer version of ONTAP, it does not give where to place the LAN in the volume. So, that liberty has been taken away. If that was there again, it would be very good."
"FC and ATTO bridges are still needed for cross datacenter replication."
"One of the features that I am looking for, which is already in the works, is to be able to take my code and automatically move it to the cloud."
"Its integration could be improved."
"The dashboard needs improvement. The dashboard needs some uplift"
"It has to be flexible according to the customer's requirements. It has to be aligned with the customer business and the business environment."
Earn 20 points
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews while Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is ranked 34th in All-Flash Storage. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System writes "Has a fantastic feature-set and works well with workflow solutions". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series, whereas Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is most compared with Dell Unity XT.
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.