Most Helpful Review
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
The ability to get to the StorageGRID from anywhere on my network. The solution is remote. You don't have to be at a physical location.
The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance.
It has enabled us to save money on storage costs. We removed our tape library.
It has improved our operational efficiency through time consumption and logistics by 40 to 50 percent. Everything that had to do with our legacy tape solution has been improved and is now more efficient.
It has awesome scalability. We consume it with storage appliance nodes, then we just plug and play as we need more.
It helps automate our storage infrastructure.
Right now, we have an older StorageGRID. I like that we can grow it.
It improves our operational efficiency.
The SwiftStack Controller, which is the web UI, provides out of band management. This has been one of the best features of it. It allows us to be able to do upgrades and look at performance metrics. It is a top feature and reason to choose the product.
The most valuable feature is its versatility. We use 1space and we can use it for almost anything: for our cloud service, for backups of VMs.
SwiftStack is also quite flexible when it comes to hardware. It depends, of course, on the use case and the kind of hardware you want to buy. But you have quite a bit of choice in hardware. The SwiftStack software itself does not impose anything on you.
It has helped us with the ability to distribute data to different data centers. As part of our DR strategy, we have nodes automatically replicating data from one data center to the other. This makes it easier for us to not have to shift tapes around.
The general consensus on what we've done is that the restores coming back from it have been faster than they were from our prior vendor. Ingest speeds are fine. The restore speeds have improved.
The scalability is phenomenal. It seems infinite, as long as you put enough storage in place, add enough nodes.
The performance is good. It is a secondary storage platform designed for archive and backup, so performance for the right use cases is very good. We have been pretty happy in that regard.
The biggest feature, the biggest reason we went with SwiftStack, rather than deploying our own model with OpenStack Swift, was their deployment model. That was really the primary point in our purchase decision, back when we initially deployed. It took my installation time from days to hours, for deployment in our environment, versus deploying OpenStack Swift ourselves, manually.
There was a small amount of confusion when working with StorageGRID and Active Directory for access. We had to do things three to four times resulting in our engineer troubleshooting a couple of things. The location of the menu, along with what is inside the menu: configurations, settings, etc., is not straightforward to users. Most users are Windows-based. So, when make logical changes to the menu which are not similar to Windows, users and administrators get confused.
The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions.
I would like to see them integrate more with the monitoring platforms. It is a bit difficult to get automated monitoring of the system.
The processes around installation and upgrade need improvement.
It has its quirks here and there, but it is an older NetApp system.
We want to move towards Azure in the cloud. Right now, the system is all physical.
The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone.
The file access needs improvement. The NFS was rolled out as a single service. It needs to be fully integrated into the proxy in a highly available fashion, like the regular proxy access is. I know it's on the roadmap.
At the moment we are using Erasure coding in an 8+4 setting. What would be nice is if, for some standard configurations like 15+4 and 8+4, there were more versatility so we could, for example, select 8+6, or the like.
On the controller features, there needs to be a bit more clean up of the user interface. There are a lot of options available on the GUI which might be better organized or compartmentalized. There are times when you are going through the user interface and you have to look around for where the setting may be. A little bit more attention to the organization of the user interface would be helpful.
They should provide a more concise hardware calculator when you're putting your capacity together.
I would like to see better client integrations, support for a broader client library. SwiftStack could be a little bit more involved in the client side: Python, Java, C, etc.
The biggest room for improvement is the maturity of the proxyFS solution. That piece of code is relatively new, so most of our issues have been around the proxyFS.
[One] thing that I've been looking for, for years as an end user and customer, for any object store, including SwiftStack, is some type of automated method for data archiving. Something where you would have a metadata tagging policy engine and a data mover all built into a single system that would automatically be able to take your data off your primary and put it into an object store in a non-proprietary way - which is key.
Pricing and Cost Advice
Creating your own data stores, backups, or storage grids, helps eliminate all these costs of downloading all the data back after you downloaded to the cloud.
Buying the solution is expensive, but it saves you money down the line when you factor in the logistics of not having to buy tapes.
The licensing that the S3 service provides them from a FabricPool standpoint is more attractive than the licensing from AWS or Azure.
We save money on storage costs from this solution since it allows us to have a source of revenue from customers consuming the service.
While we have been able to save money on storage costs, it could be better.
The price is attractive.
We chose NetApp because of price and performance.
We are able to dynamically grow storage at a lower cost. We can repurpose hardware and buy commodity hardware. There is a huge cost savings, on average $100,000 a year compared to traditional storage for what we have at our size.
The pricing model is great and makes sense. We have talked about how to get into more of a frequent billing cycle than once a year. That would be an interesting concept to add into the product, having the ability to have monthly billing instead of having to do a one-year licensing renewal. However, the way the license works by charging for storage consumed is definitely what makes them the most competitive.
Dollar per gigabyte, it costs us more because we are storing more. However, if you look at it from a cost per gigabyte perspective, we have dropped our costs significantly.
We find the pricing rather steep. Of course, you get quality for your money, that's absolutely true... [But] when you look at the prices of the licensing and the prices of your hardware, it's quite substantial.
The annual support and maintenance costs compared to our old solution for backups had about a two-thirds savings, so about a 60% annual savings on our support and maintenance contract. That savings funded additional expansion for what it was costing us for the support and maintenance contracts on old solution.
The pricing and licensing are capacity-based, so it's hard to put my finger on them, because so many different vendors charge in different ways. We are still saving significantly over any of the other options that we evaluated because we can choose the best hardware at the best price, then put SwiftStack software on it. So, it's hard to complain, even though a part of me goes, "It would be nicer if it were less expensive."
We have had a 40 to 50 percent reduction in CAPEX on the acquisition of new hardware, which is probably conservative.
COST_SAVING; We have had a 40 to 50 percent reduction in CAPEX on the acquisition of new hardware, which is probably conservative.
out of 20 in File and Object Storage
Average Words per Review
out of 20 in File and Object Storage
Average Words per Review
Compared 30% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 39% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Also Known As
Store and manage unstructured data at scale using NetApp StorageGRID for secure, durable object storage. Place content in the right location, at the right time, and on the right storage tier, optimizing workflows and reducing overall costs for globally distributed rich media.
|SwiftStack enables you to do more with storage. Store more data, enable more applications and serve more users. We do this by delivering a proven object storage solution that's built on an open-source core and is fully enterprise ready. Our object storage software is an alternative to complex, expensive, on-premises hardware-based storage solutions. SwiftStack delivers the features and flexibility you need to easily manage and scale object storage behind your firewall. Customers are demanding storage where they can pay as they grow, find it is easier to consume, and can infinitely scale. Today, our customers use SwiftStack for archiving active data, serving web content, building private clouds, sharing documents and storing backups.|
Learn more about NetApp StorageGRID
Learn more about SwiftStack
|ASE, DARZ GmbH||Pac-12 Networks, Georgia Institute of Technology, Budd Van Lines|
Software R&D Company30%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm13%
No Data Available