In the past, we were working with outsourcers on-premise. Even compared to just standard Azure or other solutions available, this solution has allowed for probably 50 percent, or in some cases, higher storage savings.

From a scale or scalability perspective, the more data you store, then the more you can save. For example, the more data you can tear down from SSDs (from premium storage down to Azure Blob), then the more you're going to save. Scale certainly matters because as the more data you store, then the higher savings you can achieve. 

There are storage efficiencies built into the product. The tiering helps with keeping the storage costs under control, i.e., the tiering from primary storage to Blob storage or object storage helps. Also, the storage efficiencies, deduplication, and compression help to keep storage costs under control. Depending on what solution you are coming off of, a 50 percent savings in storage costs is achievable.

We have seen an internal return on investment daily because we're saving time retrieving files.

It has saved us a lot of money. If we don't use it and want native AWS, then we have to pay three or four times more. 

We are also using it for other use cases. We use CVO for replicating product data to the dev test environment in AWS with a SnapMirror technology, using data from CVO to the dev test environment in AWS data using SnapMirror. This is much faster than any other solution that you can imagine for moving data from on-prem to AWS. We tried many methods, including some native AWS methods. We tried FTP server, file transfer, etc., but none of them were as fast and as quick as SnapMirror replication.

When we store more data with the solution, we can save more money. The savings depends on how many copies we make of each stage of the environment. If we need to clone the environment four times, then we save a lot of money. If we have to clone the data 10 times, then there are huge savings.

In my opinion, we're getting a good return on investment.

I have not seen any ROI.

Cost reduction has been a significant benefit. We've been able to lower our expenses by minimizing the number of devices and drive shelves needed. Instead of having twenty drive shelves, we now only require two. This reduction in hardware has had a positive impact on power consumption, cooling, and maintenance costs, leading to overall cost savings.

As we store more data, we save more money using Cloud Volumes. The deduplication engine can find more commonalities as you accumulate more data, which has helped. Of course, it depends on the data type. It doesn't help if you have compressed data, but it's suitable for unstructured data.

Deduplication is one of the most significant improvements I've seen in the product. In the past, Cloud Volumes could only dedupe on the volume level, but now it can dedupe on the aggregate level, which means you can look at more volumes and commonalities. You have a greater chance to dedupe more data in that scenario.

We save on storage in general. One of the biggest selling points of Cloud Volumes is that you can deploy it quickly. You don't need to spend time and resources planning and setting up physical storage equipment in your data center. Real estate in a data center is precious, so cost savings makes Cloud Volumes enticing. In our case, we don't need a physical disaster recovery location. Anything that isn't Tier 1 goes to the cloud.

Now that we have started using tiering, we could still actually save more costs, but we haven't gone to that specific area. We know it is definitely going to affect the performance if we keep all the data in the cloud tier. That's why we haven't. But Cloud Volumes ONTAP has the flexibility to dump all the data to the cloud tier to save every penny possible.

It is a great product. It gives you the heads-up for what you need. You can move clients around and access the clients from different locations. You can also do a restore when you need to be at different locations. That has helped enormously. It has helped drive the cost down. Our clients are able to stay up and function consistently. There are a good 30% to 40% savings. 

I believe our clients see a return because they don't need to purchase hardware. It's much easier and quicker for them to get additional storage when needed compared to an on-prem system. 

They save on costs associated with ordering additional storage for a physical on-prem system versus expanding what you have and you pay a little more in Azure. One client saw significant cost savings on their electricity bill. They reduced their bill by almost half just by shutting these things off.

We have seen ROI. All of our SLASs via some of our SQL databases,  have SLAs of around five minutes. SnapMirror works great for that. We don't have that and if we have a disaster, then we could be in big trouble if we have SLA breaches and stuff like that.

This is more of a pay-as-you-go model rather than an investment, but we definitely see benefits. If we had to build another NetApp in our on-premise location, whether we used the storage or not, we would just be spending money. The asset would just depreciate, whereas, in the cloud, we only use what we need and we just pay for what we use.

We have not realized any money or savings yet because we are still in our deployment process.

We're probably burning about $10,000 a month on it but it's saving us the CapEx and the power and cooling of a real filer. We're likely seeing at least a 50 percent saving.

I am not aware if it saves money on storage. This is managed by senior people.

We have seen return on investment but I don't have the numbers. 

It's too early to comment on ROI because we're just a little more than one year into a five-year business case. We'll probably see a return in the third or fourth year.

Our users are happy, so I guess that's a good return on our investment.

We have seen ROI.

I know we're providing our service very cost-effectively, and it's selling faster than we expected. Money is coming in faster than we expected and, therefore, I need to drop what I'm charging per gigabyte per month so I don't make a profit, because we're not allowed to. So it's obviously successful.

We needed an HA solution, which we got from NetApp, so that's the only return we've received. Otherwise, we would have to go with another risky option. We do now have the option of moving over to FSx as well.

We never really got down to the TCO. We just know that it was at least 20% better. The only reason we would pick it and change everything is that it was cheaper and consistent with our architecture. 

Since we're a SaaS business, we need to have stable environments for our customers. We can't have downtime every week or so. Stability is very important for us, as well as a guarantee that data is being backed up. If someone, even by mistake, deletes something, there is a way to recover it. Stability, availability, performance, all these kinds of things, mean we're eventually getting more customers and more satisfied customers.

We have had less downtime.

Because we went with the BYOL instead of pay as you go, we haven't seen ROI.

Using this solution, the more data that we store, the more money we can save. If you use traditional cloud providers, then you cannot manage unified lists. For that, you would need to follow a set of rules and some other stuff. You also need to have more people managing the entire environment. Whereas, NetApp provides a single point solution. 

Our customer has not specifically seen ROI. However, they did a calculation that showed they saved money by not buying another on-premises solution. So, there is some return on investment there, I would say, or a TCO saving at least.