NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) Previous Solutions

SteveGrangert
Storage Engineer at Missile Defense Agency
We've had NetApp since day one. Within our organization, there are multiple other teams and almost all of them use NetApp on classified networks. We have a little bit of HP and I think there's a couple of EMCs floating around somewhere, but they're slowly going away. Most of them being replaced by NetApp. Mainly, NetApp is very robust, very reliable, and they cost less. Nowadays with the government worried about costs, trying to keep taxes down, that's a big plus. It just so happens that it's a very good product. It's a win-win. View full review »
reviewer950775
Storage Architect at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees
We knew that we needed to invest in a new solution as it was mostly a cost-effective decision. When the purchase of our AFF system was announced — which was an AFF8040 — it was not any more expensive than SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) drives. So the cost was about the same and the solution was very effective. Sure enough, we made the right decision. It is performing very well, too, even though it is almost obsolete now. View full review »
reviewer1223547
Data Protection Engineering at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Prior to this solution, we had all these different disparate types of storage. It was a problem because, for example, but we'd be running on low NAS but there was all the extra storage in our SAN environment. The solution seems a little cheaper, but when you added the whole cost up, it was cheaper for us to just have a single solution that could do everything. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
419,536 professionals have used our research since 2012.
reviewer1223544
Consulting Storage Engineer at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
We use all-flash arrays for our network shares. We have a couple of other platforms that we also have used in the past. I really wanted to move away from those for simplicity. Another big reason is automation. NetApp has done a great job with their automation The Ansible modules along with all the PowerShell command lists that they have developed, make it very consumable for automation, which is very big for us right now. That was one of the big driving forces is having a single operating environment, regardless if I'm running an all-flash array or hybrid array. It's the same look and feel. Everything works exactly the same regardless. That definitely speaks to the simplicity and ease of automation. I can automate and use it everywhere, whether it's cloud, on-prem, etc. That was one of the real decisions for us to decide to go that direction. View full review »
FelmonKahissay
System Administrator at Bell Canada
Initially, we were working with EMC VNX devices. But as life kicks in, we were looking for a long-term solution and what our roadmap was in terms of storage aspects. We saw the true benefit in terms of cost as well as the efficiency to be able to leverage storage. We found AFF to be a better fit for our use case. We had the Dell EMC product line for a long time in terms of portfolio and different options of gears. We looked at NetApp gears and capabilities, not just the storage component. However, the capability of being able to go beyond the storage, as a software-defined solution is something that attracted us to NetApp. It is a fit all solution for now. In our previous storage, we were doing a lot of roadmapping and giving customers a certain amount of storage. Whether customers used or allocated it, it was sitting in there. With the AFF thin provisioning, it has given us the benefit of being able to reduce our footprint from four arrays to a single 2U array. So, we are able to leverage efficiency and virtual volumes with thin provisioning. This gives us almost three to four times more storage efficiency. View full review »
reviewer1223526
Senior Network Technical Developer and Support Expert at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Prior to this solution, we were running a NetApp 7-Mode implementation with twenty-four filers. View full review »
ShawnMurdoch
Systems Engineer at Cleveland Clinic
I chose NetApp because I was most impressed with the engineers that we talked to about the system and its overall metrics along with the things that we were given, like latency and redundancy. I was most impressed with the demos that they did that, which included: ease of setting up an AFF, ease of deploying storage to a SQL Cluster, and just overall simplicity of how easy it is to move data around to back up things. View full review »
Greg Rose
Principal Engineer at a retailer with 5,001-10,000 employees
We knew it was time to switch to this solution because it was costing us a fortune in maintenance, especially when our hardware was getting over the three to five year old mark. With spinning disc, it's not like we can neglect that because drives fail all the time and the previous iteration of storage we had was a NetApp FAS, so we've gone from NetApp to NetApp. View full review »
reviewer1223355
IT Director at a legal firm
That decision to got with AFF was made before me. They switched from a NetApp FAS system, which is spinning disc storage. We came over to that from a Hitachi BlueArc system that was very old. The FAS system was doing well, but when it came time to add more storage, it was obvious that the choice for flash was the way to go, specifically for virtual machines and applications. It would have been chosen for virtual machine storage and application delivery. View full review »
reviewer1223421
Senior Data Center Architect at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Previously we had not used another solution. We have been using NetApp for years, we went from refresh approximately two years ago, then sixty to forty to the A300 All-Flash. View full review »
VinodKaila
Storage Architect and Engineer at United Airlines
We were using a bunch of other products prior to using this solution, and we are still using some that have been deployed because of the sixteen terabyte limit on each line of the fiber channel. View full review »
StorageA3fb6
Storage Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
We were running into a lot of storage roadblocks that were performance based. Also, the IBM product that we were using was at the end of life for 90 percent of our enterprise. I spent 15 years with IBM. Anytime I go into a data center, and I see Big Blue, it is the first thing that I replace. View full review »
DataCentee24
Data Center Engineer at a non-profit
The gear we were on was about ten years old. We always buy behind the technology curve. I noticed that spinning disk was going away and that the industry moving towards SSDs, so I wanted us to try to get ahead of the curve a little bit, to give us some more horsepower to do some more initiatives that we want to get done in the future. View full review »
Keith Latimer
IT Operations Manager at Idaho State Insurance Fund
A big guiding point for upgrading hardware of any type now is to look at the support costs. If support costs get high enough, it financially doesn't make any sense to not upgrade. Usually once a new technology matures enough, you can look at TCO and decide to make the decision to move ahead. So, we invested in this solution because of costs and the technology improved to the point where we knew it would be stable. View full review »
NetworkSb3b8
Network Services Manager at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were on a standard NetApp but we upgraded to the FAS because of performance. We had it in for a test and it succeeded. That's why we bought it. I have been with the company for 20 years and we have had NetApp for 20 years. We did switch over to IBM, about ten years ago, right before we went to Epic. But Epic said, "No IBM. NetApp." We were switching from NetApp to IBM, because IBM had a little bit of advantage, a long time ago. Then Epic came in and said, "No, switch back." So, we're back. View full review »
SanEnginf30d
SAN Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Our previous solution had performance issues. I see a lot of value in faster policies. I don't like when critical applications are running on drives with different speeds. When customers need to track all of their data and it's sitting on a 7k drive, the drive is working hard. The response is slow. With all-flash, it's better. View full review »
Sunder Periesany
Technical manager at Macrovention
We have customers who are not NetApp customers. We teach them what the capabilities and challenges are. Our main goal is to comply with and meet our customers' challenges. If NetApp really fits their needs, we move on from there. In a case where we need to transition the whole infrastructure from a different storage brand to NetApp, we'll do that. If the customer is an existing user, it's easier for us to convince them. If they're a non-NetApp user, it takes time because we have to do proofs of concept to justify it to them. If they agree technically, then the commercial conversation starts. Normally, the commercial conversion does not take that long, because the technical team has agreed to the solution. View full review »
DavidGarcia
Systems Engineer at Nordstrom, Inc.
We started looking into NetApp AFF because our previous solution was outdated, and we were having storage problems. They were older FAS storage, also by NetApp. We were interested in getting something a little better, including improvements in the storage and the latency. View full review »
AlanHaskic
Systems Management Engineer at Linklaters
Before moving to NetApp, we were with their major competitor. View full review »
reviewer1085652
Sr Data Storage at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees
We also evaluated Pure Storage. They also provide an all-flash array but I like NetApp better. With NetApp they allow us as a system administrator, we are able to do everything we want. View full review »
VikramjeetSingh
Storage Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
As storage space is getting cheaper, we wanted to move to newer hardware. View full review »
reviewer1223358
Infrastructure Team Lead at a pharma/biotech company with 51-200 employees
We had an AFF already there. We just upgraded. In my previous company, where I was for five years, we used NetApp extensively. So I had a lot of experience and interaction with it. View full review »
reviewer1223388
Systems Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
We have been a NetApp customer for a long time. We just recently added a NetApp StorageGRID product for more object-store advantages in our data pipeline. It is adding more value. NetApp is the number one leader in NFS, which is the protocol that we primarily use. We looked for a new solution simply because IOM3 modules were deprecated and moving forward from ONTAP 9.3 to version 9.6 required a full forklift upgrade, and a bunch of hardware was thrown out. View full review »
Ashwin Bhadra
Senior Manager of Product and Services at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We did not have any other flash solution. We were running a tiered storage approach but because of market demand, where our customers wanted efficient performance, agile cloud storage, that is what drove us to evaluate the newer technologies. With all the technical evaluations we did, we settled on All-Flash. We chose NetApp because we had the SolidFires in place and we already had the standardization. We also went with NetApp because of the partnership and the support that we get from NetApp. In addition, it proved that it was technically better than the competitors in the benchmarks. View full review »
BryanCranny
Storage Manager at State of Nebraska
We have several different SAN and NAS products in our environment. With the traditional spinning storage, We are running into bottlenecks with performance problems. The AFF products have given us the opportunity to move people to all-flash high performance storage tiers, which will make their virtual machines, database servers, and SQL run much better in a flash environment for us than in a hybrid or spinning disk environment. View full review »
reviewer1223436
Tech Solutions Architect at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
We didn't switch over. We have been using NetApp for 15 years. This solution has reduced our data center costs because when we went from the 8000 and 3200 series that took us from 20 racks of storage down to two. View full review »
Ed Alexander
Senior System Engineer at Red Hat
We didn't technically switch solutions. We just augmented it because we have been a NetApp customer for awhile. Thus, we're going from FAS to AFF, which is just a natural progression. View full review »
Peg Heffron
Network Professional at a transportation company with 5,001-10,000 employees
The reasons we switched were performance and the number of IOPS in the previous product. It was an older product which was dog-slow. Some of the larger file servers were the worst. And that played out to everything else that was sharing the storage with it. View full review »
reviewer1223538
Storage Administrator at a software R&D company with 5,001-10,000 employees
We performed a PoC using Cloud Volumes and Cloud Sync, and we were happy with the time, durability, and availability. View full review »
reviewer1223415
Director at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Prior to NetApp AFF, we were using an HPE Storage solution. It was a little more difficult to swap out the drives on the XP series. You have to shut down the drive and then wait for a prompt to remove it. It's a long process and if somebody pulls it out hot and puts another one in then you're going to have to do a complete rebuild. It is not as robust or stable when you are swapping parts. View full review »
reviewer1223367
Storage Administrator at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Our previous solution was spinning disk, and our application demands more in terms of storage and performance. NetApp AFF just seemed like the natural route because we didn't want to get left behind. View full review »
reviewer1223409
Specialist Senior at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Our previous NetApp system was a SAS and SATA spinning disk solution that was reaching end-of-life, and we were overrunning it. We were ready for an upgrade and we stuck with NetApp because of the easy of cross-upgrading, as well as the performance. View full review »
it_user577449
Manager Biomedical System Services at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I think we were previously using IBM FASt100 in the 2000s. From there, we moved on to NetApp. View full review »
reviewer1223364
Sr Storage Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We have used NetApp for a very long time. Our reason for implementing AFF was that we wanted to go for an all-flash solution. We didn't want to keep using hard disks, but we still wanted to continue using SnapMirror and Snapshots. This was the way to do it. View full review »
Sandeep Thota
Consulting Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Customers were already using the application. We took their feedback. It was the best product based on our requirements. View full review »
SeniorSt396d
Senior Storage Engineer at a legal firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Our last solution was at end of life and warranty. We went from NetApp to NetApp, so we stayed with NetApp, but we move to the latest, greatest solution. View full review »
SeniorStd2e6
Senior storage engineer at a government with 10,001+ employees
Our old solution was working fine but the system was going out of support so we needed to do a refresh. View full review »
reviewer1223394
System Programmer at a energy/utilities company with 5,001-10,000 employees
We have a large amount of unstructured data, so we felt that AFF was the right solution for us. View full review »
PhilHarris
Technical Lead at USAF
We've been with NetApp since I came on the project and because I had NetApp experience before I brought it with me. View full review »
RajkumarKatke
Technical Solution Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Our previous solutions were Hitachi, Siemens, and NetApp. We switched to AFF because it had all-flash, better performance, and better response times. It also scales better. We used to do applications running on mechanical disk. With the introduction of SDDs and AFF All Flash, this has given us substantial improvements in our applications' performance. View full review »
SeniorIn28f7
Senior in technology and engineer at a marketing services firm
We knew we needed to invest in a new solution because everybody is moving forward. We don't want to stand still. View full review »
Zakeer Mohammed
Storage Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Our previous solution had issues with capacity, monitoring, and performance. These are the core areas where the customer was feeling the pain. So, we get them to a different place with a proper solution and fix for the issues. I feel like AFF has the features the customer needs. View full review »
PrArch3450
Principal Architect at a tech company with 5,001-10,000 employees
For our use case, we were automating what we were doing so we chose to use the All Flash REST APIs. View full review »
PyldItgrn734
Payload Integration at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
We have always been a NetApp customer, it's a very good product. We knew that we wanted more performance. It wasn't a hard decision. View full review »
StorageE3f86
Storage Engineer at a university with 10,001+ employees
We were at the edge of the performance on our previous system. We took a risk with the AFF because it was more expensive than going with the newer model of what we had, but it was definitely worth it. View full review »
SystemsE2a93
Systems Engineer Manager at a hospitality company with 10,001+ employees
We were using HPE EVAs, which are very clunky and old, so we moved over to NetApp. We were just bought out by another company who has been using Dell EMC. They're not happy with that solution, so we brought them into NetApp. View full review »
Paul Holt
Executive director IT Systems at MemorialCare Health System
We were moving to a new data center, so we needed it. View full review »
Rodrigo Carte
Head of IT at Inacap
If you are compare it with our last application, IBM FS840, AFF is incredible in comparison. View full review »
Alberto Alberti
Senior System Engineer at ICTeam
fas 2554, need to scle out with space and performances View full review »
StorageEd685
Storage Engineer at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were pushing what we had too far on performance. It wasn't so good, so that's when we looked at All Flash. View full review »
SeniorEn1c49
Senior Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were not previously using another solution. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
419,536 professionals have used our research since 2012.