We have used Synology storage. And we have some Dell equipment, but we don't use those the same way as a FAS – they are just for optional features. 

We did research a while ago, and found that the best solutions at the time were EMC and NetApp. We saw some Dell options, but EMC and NetApp were superior based on our research. That's how we decided to try NetApp.

We have lots of competitors, so I have to address the storage needs of our prospects and customers. And while sometimes we are not chosen by NetApp. 

So if we want to try to get the deal when someone else is answering with NetApp, I have to go with WAP, potentially Huawei, and then sometimes Pure Storage. Most of the time, if I don't sell some NetApp, it's Huawei.

Huawei is a little bit easier to use than NetApp. Then it can be really very aggressive about the costs. So sometimes we have some customers that really don't look so much at the technical points and the performance or the function generality and want some cost. So, sometimes, it's a bit easier with NetApp.

Then, we offer solutions with business continuity similar to what Huawei provides—network clusters and related solutions, making the offerings closely aligned.

At the filer level, we began with NetApp and FAS. When I joined in 2006, we were already using FAS. Around 2011, we started incorporating the AFS or all-flash systems.

I regularly work with solutions from NetApp, Dell, and HPE.

When you compare the price and performance, it is better than EMC Isilon. Performance-wise, EMC Isilon is better than NetApp FAS Series. So if a customer has enough budget and wants better performance, I will offer EMC Isilon.

The structure of both solutions is a bit different. NetApp FAS Series is a mix of scale-up and scale-out, but EMC Isilon has only scale-out. I offer EMC Isilon for some projects, and for others, I offer the NetApp FAS Series. However, most of the time, I use NetApp because Turkey is a price-sensitive country. So most of the time, NetApp FAS Series' price and performance are better than EMC Isilon.

The NetApp FAS Series is more scalable than EMC Isilon because it can scale horizontally and vertically, while EMC Isilon can only expand horizontally. And every time you need to buy a controller with a disc. For NetApp FAS Series, you can scale up capacity if you don't need more performance. EMC Isilon provides capacity and performance, but if you don't need more performance, you don't need to pay more.

Currently, my company has moved from NetApp FAS Series to a solution from Dell.

When we moved from HPE EVA to FAS, it was to have NAS services. For NAS, NetApp was probably the best one at that time.

I've used a different NetApp solution, but I cannot remember the exact type of storage. The reasons I switched to the NetApp FAS Series is because I already knew the product. Another reason for choosing this solution is its reliability. I never had an issue with it in the eight years I've been using it.

I work with HPE and Huawei OceanStor, too. HPE is great, but I'm not satisfied with Huawei OceanStor. I'm comfortable with HPE and NetApp FAS Series.

We work with Dell EMC and Huawei.

I recommend NetApp on top of the Dell EMC since it's less complex.

Previously we used the IBM N Series storage system. We switched because of its limited features.

Five or six years ago, we used a Hitachi solution with fiber channel.

We have had different NetApp models. FAS has been around for a long time. The newer models are called AFF, and I have used AFF 300 and AFF 400.

I have used other solutions in the past.

Pure Storage for SAN

We've used Dell solutions. NetApp is easier and simpler to manage. It's more reliable and stable. The basic features work more consistently on the NetApp website.

We have always used NetApp, so we did not switch from another vendor.

We have used some solutions like Hitachi, Dell, and EMC, but NetApp has more flexibility and we decided to stay with NetApp.

• My first case was migrate all solutions from Hitachi Storage to NetApp FAS on SAN with brocade.
• Migrated all VMware environment to NetApp storage.
• Migrated all backup solutions that were running on Veritas Backup to VSC on NetApp.
• Migrated our whole Oracle database running on HDS storage to NetApp storage.

In the past, I used, and still work with, solutions like Fujitsu and Hitachi, but when I have an opportunity to work with a NetApp solution, I don't want to go back. That's because the NetApp solutions give me more flexibility to work.

We previously used NAS storage and it was not stable.

We invest in a new solution when the existing solution goes out of its initial support. We have been looking for new options for about six months now because the extended support is very, very expensive.

During the years, we have had quite a few storage solutions, none of which did give us the same level performance, reliability, and manageability as the FAS-series has.

I've used EMC solutions in different companies.

No

I did not previously use a different solution. When I started working with the county, they already had the NetApp FAS.

I deal with a lot of solutions similar in the concept with NetApp FAS, but when it comes to NetApp, there are too many features that means it worth it.

We used HDS before NetApp and we switched because of the snapshot technology and high-availability function.

We did a long time ago.

We previously used a Dell product. I think the two solutions are very similar. I also worked with Visionet, but that is apples and oranges. I wouldn't compare NetApp FAS with Visionet because these are very different site systems—parallel site systems.

EMC.

We have had NetApp for a long time, and were one of the first customers in Belgium.

It's complex, not a trivial task. We can unbox it and deploy. There are many unpublished tech tips that NetApp engineers get that customers don’t (for example, how to save a disk).

When I arrived at the company they were using NetApp, and we are still using NetApp.

When selecting a vendor, I first look at how robust the solution is that they're proposing, and how available they are to answer calls if there are any issues. This is very critical. The robustness of the solution and the availability of the vendor to attend to queries are important components of my selection criteria. After-sales support is also very key.

Reasons for choosing NetApp include that it's probably the most solid, robust, and easy-to-implement solution.

We were previously using an old IBM SAN. We switched because we wanted to moved to a unified system.

We did our research and, at the time, NetApp was what we chose. Our most important criterion when selecting a vendor is reliability. The price is, obviously, always an issue but reliability and the quality of the product are most important.

Previously, we used VNX5300 NAS. We found this one better suited to our needs.