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."One of the lesser sung advantages was when we started running our interface engine on Pure Storage. The ability to process messages and pass them through in our organization skyrocketed purely because of a disk that I owned which we were getting out of Pure Storage."
"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."
"Having an intuitive user interface to get things running is great."
"It is all-flash. This makes it a lot faster than the rest of what we have, as it is able to drive high I/O loads, which is big for us."
"Their REST API is wonderful, well-documented, and easy to use."
"The amount of throughput that we're getting is really nice."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"It helps us maintain uptime much better than other solutions we've used in the past, and the support is extremely quick and responsive."
"The most valuable features are the ease of administration and configuration, as well as the speed of deployment."
"Multi-protocol is the most valuable feature for us. It does everything in one system: sifts, EBES, ISCSI, and fiber channel. Other systems don't do all that."
"The benefits of being on AFF are the phenomenal speed at which we're able to ingest data and index it, and the IOPS."
"Its efficiency and scalability are the most valuable features."
"Data efficiency is the most valuable feature because of the dedupe and compression."
"Speed. it's very performance designed. It's designed to have a lot of high speed."
"The most valuable feature of AFF is that it offers better visibility and control over performance, ensuring it meets customer needs effectively."
"All of the features are good. With Flash, we have high-performing databases. Having that kind of performance has been valuable."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"The way Pure Storage does the controller storage warranty or replacement has been an issue for some people who just replace the controllers every couple of years, and that's where some of the confusion with pricing and support has come in. They should be clear on the way the controller replacements happen, as it is important to know whether or not you can get a good return on them, because it can be a little confusing."
"I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for uses that we needed."
"They are doing some stuff with containers and an object search. These could be improved, because containers is one of the main topics that we are talking with our customers about."
"Automation could be simplified."
"There's always an opportunity for new feature functionality."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"If they could make it cheaper, that would be something."
"I think replication is one area that still needs improvement. Earlier, Pure Storage FlashArray only had IP-based replication. There was no API-based replication, but they have enhanced the feature now. However, they need to work on API replication for C-type of arrays."
"I just got through the session where it looks like they are going to support Oracle running on Linux with SnapCenter. That is one of the main things that we are hoping to get integrated."
"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."
"The initial setup was a little complex, because we weren't very knowledgeable in the NetApp at the time. We were using a third-party, and they didn't have a lot of technical individuals, so it took a while to get it out."
"We have had issues with CIFS presentations and outages, so if that was removed, we could do seamless upgrades without affecting CIFS presentations. That would be an advantage. That's about the only improvement I can think of."
"Technical support is a little lackluster. Some of the issues that we've had were opening up tickets. They seem to be routed in the wrong direction or it takes one or two days to get a call back for simple tasks."
"We would like to have NVMe on FabricPool working because it broke our backups. We enabled FabricPool to do the tiering from our AFFs to our Webscale but it sort of broke our Cobalt backups."
"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."
"We only had a few upgrade issues."
"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 Unity XT, Dell PowerStore, 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.