NetApp FAS Series Reviews

NetApp FAS Series are used for sharing environments.

The most valuable feature of the NetApp FAS Series is the snapshot and the FlexClone for Oracle and Microsoft SQL environments. Additionally, the integration can be done with most all on-premise and cloud providers.

We no longer have OEM support in South Africa which is not helpful, it can be difficult. They should add an office back to the country because it was better. 

I have been using NetApp FAS Series for approximately 10 years.

NetApp FAS Series is exceptionally stable and performs well. We have been running a metro cluster and we have not had any data downtime in 10 years.

The support is generally okay but they lack expertise at times. They should add an office in South Africa for support, it would be better for customers.

The setup of the NetApp FAS Series has improved over the years and is reasonable.

The price of the NetApp FAS Series is reasonable and it provides value for the money with the feature sets. NetApp FAS Series are competing with Huawei storage which has an office and does aggressive marketing with a discount. However, we found that if our customers do a technology refresh they are happy with the performance of the NetApp FAS Series.

The price of the solution is based on a lot of aspects, such as installation type, size, and technology being used. 

My advice to others is for them to consistently adhere to the best practice guide. By following the guide thoroughly, including details, such as cabling, you can prevent any issues from arising. Practicing best practices ensures a smoother experience overall.

We have a lot of customers moving to VMware from the NetApp FAS Series solution.

We are using the NetApp FAS3240 as an integrated solution with a FlexPod that is used to host virtual machines, databases, and applications. It's a large solution with resilience and good performance; to date, we haven't had any complaints about it.

We decided to use NetApp FAS because we needed to decrease the cost of running our infrastructure. When we moved to this solution, we concentrated all the resources on top of it so that if there's something we need, we can offer it up without spending much time or money on new resources. There is no more hassle, beyond attending to the demands of running the FAS.

At the end of the day, we have reduced the time to market for all of our products, especially when we need to support our clients with new requirements.

The replication feature is noteworthy because it's faster than most and it uses little bandwidth. Then there's the friendly interface that the equipment offers. With this interface, it is very easy to manage.

I think this kind of infrastructure is mostly obsolete. To keep up with developments in this space, you need to move all these features to an All-Flash solution. Nowadays, we are working with a massive database involving big data and lots of information (even intelligence), and for these environments, it's not appropriate to run this kind of business. We feel that we need to move to an All-Flash environment in order to offer better performance for the client.

I have been using NetApp FAS since 2010.

The stability is fine. There have been no problems to date. Since 2010 until today, we have replaced no more than seven disks, but it all depends on the facilities that you are using. I can say that based on this factor, it has been very affordable to use this solution.

In general, it's a resilient solution with good performance.

We started with two instances, and now we are running four. It was very easy to scale them. We assembled them, connected them, and the business has been running very well.

On the second upgrade that we did, it was quite different because they started licensing based on the capacity of the disks. I thought this was strange, but technically speaking, it was very easy to upgrade the environment with minimal knowledge needed.

NetApp has very good support. I have no complaints about them. When you go to Active IQ, you have all the features you need. You can replace any spare within 24 hours, which is good for business.

It was straightforward and took only five working days to deploy. I remember that in the beginning it took quite some time to replicate one side to another because the communication between the sides was not good enough, but once we upgraded the communication, it started running smoothly.

We do the maintenance for the implementation ourselves. We have an agreement with the facilities that we have with NetApp, such that it's not tied to the supplier and we can maintain it by ourselves. We have a team which is prepared for this scenario as the first line of maintenance, and if we need more than what we can afford, we open a call and it's very straightforward to solve the problem from there.

As I have mentioned, we have been using NetApp FAS since 2010 and lately some infrastructure is becoming obsolete. However, after only three years of running it, we have had good results in terms of return on investment. We plan on switching out some of the end-of-life solutions with the rest of the amount invested.

We have considered upgrading to an All-Flash solution but when we evaluated the cost-benefit we discovered that we don't have enough money to invest in it. To maintain the same technology with All-Flash would be too expensive for us.

NetApp FAS is a fine product. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I've been involved in daily operations like ratio to volume and aggregate monitoring. I've also worked on the ONTAP 9 manager, as well as an ONTAP upgrade of the operating system. I've also done a small implementation along with my colleague.

The use cases depend on the customer's specific needs. Factors like workload, legal requirements, and desired protocols would determine if FAS is a good fit. 

For example, if the customer has a large database workload, we might suggest AFF instead. But for most other cases, we can recommend FAS because it's more economical compared to AWS.

Most of the important features are already included, like compression, deduplication, snapshots, and more. 

More integration would be beneficial. Moreover, cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive. But we do have other products, like support for other models, that are more cost-effective.

So, the pricing could be improved. 

I've been using it since 2017.

It's a stable product. No issues there.

It is a scalable product. I've seen it used at a bank in India with a large number of users and also at another customer site with about 250 users.

We've reached out to support when facing technical issues, such as hardware failures or processing problems. We log a call with NetApp support, and we've always received proper support. No issues there.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward.

The deployment itself usually takes around two to three days. However, if there's data migration involved, it could take longer. 

On the first day, we would onboard the box and do a hit-run test. Then, on the second or third day, we would do the implementation. 

If there's data migration, that would add some time to the process. But overall, the installation and setup can be done within two to three days.

For deployment, a team of two to four people is usually sufficient. It depends on whether it's a large-scale or small-scale deployment. But two to three people are generally okay.

It is worth it. It's very good for customers. Once a customer uses NetApp hardware, I don't think they'll go for other vendors or OEMs. They're getting the service, so there are no issues.

The licensing cost is on yearly basis. 

It's the best for the environment. No issues. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I can recommend it to others as well. But, it's important to check the pricing against competitors to ensure it's competitive.

The most valuable features are the snapshots, the flash pool that we’re using, and cluster mode. When we are doing an upgrade, there is less of an impact on the customer when you use cluster mode. It still has some with CIFS, but at least it has less impact.

Compared to the previous solution, I would not say that it has really improved anything. We were with the HPE EVA before the NetApp. It takes more of my time to manage them, as opposed to HPE EVA, with which I created LUNs and it's done. I have a lot more tasks to do. At least now with NetApp, we can provide NAS services, which HPE EVA did not have.

I would like to see antivirus that works, and generally a working solution. They just provided Vserver DR, which is good.

Now we need to have a way to do some tests only because to do testing we really need to failover to the second site, destroy everything, rebuild it, and failback. I really need a test mode that is not as destructive, at least. There is no test mode. Maybe there is with ONTAP 9. I’m not sure. That’s probably a feature that doesn’t figure into the short-term roadmap.

For more detail:

With Data Ontap 7 if something was wrong there was a real passthru that was protecting us against a loss of service if something was wrong with McAfee.

Now with Cluster Data Ontap they introduce the AV connector and the passthru is not working correctly. We have delayed our migration to the c-dot environment for over 2 years now with open call at netapp. It tooks them over 8 months to admit there was a problem until a second customer get hit with the same problem we had. This has cause us service impact with our external customer, so we are running with the antivirus disable in our c-dot cifs shares since (at least they are used mostly by applications, not direct users).

We have 2 specific cases that happen:

* A McAfee agent upgrade that cause the Virus Scan Enterprise for Storage (VSES) to stop working
* A bad config in EPO pushing an invalid user to start the VSES preventing it to be able to read the file on the netapp

In September, a new version (1.0.3) of the AV connector that was supposed to fix these issues was available but it didn’t help the file access are still being denied. The test we did was for the second problem which is easy to reproduce. Just after that I was being interviewed during the Netapp Insight which has given that review.

Since we have worked with Netapp and McAfee, I have seen no real intent to have a functioning passthru. They instead finger point McAfee for not replying. We have tried an hotfix from McAfee but it is still not working.

For vserver DR this is a new functionality which is really good and very helpful for our DR solutions. The improvement that should be done to it is a better way to fallback, there is none currently so we need to delete all the setup, on the secondary : reconfigure it, copy everything to primary and then fail it back to primary. Then to reconfigure it properly, we need to delete, reconfigure and copy to the secondary.

It is very unstable. We have a lot of issues with antivirus programs interrupting us from providing services to our customer. As soon as something happens with McAfee, the customer had problems with our services.

With the 7 mode, we were okay. There was a real pass-through working correctly, so if something happened with the NT file server, the files were still being served to the customer. With cDOT, it's completely the opposite. It's completely out of service. We have a lot of service impact.

We have been delaying the CIFS transition a lot because of this.

We have been using technical support for over two years regarding services been down. Support was not efficient in that case. They are available. They tried. I was supposed to have a solution with the latest version. That was last week. I did the test, but it’s still not working.

Before the admin, there was an issue, it took close to a year until a second customer had the same issue. Then, they finally admitted that I wasn't the problem. It was an issue with the software. That's certainly why I rate them poorly.

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.

The initial setup was straightforward. I had no problem with that.

We also considered EMC at that time and HPE. For what we needed, NetApp was the best one.

The most important criteria we look for in a vendor is good service and quality of the product.

Properly define what you need first. After that, talk with people who know NetApp well, know how to set it up, and properly define the design architecture before doing it.

We use the solution for its unified features of file and block protocols in a heterogeneous environment.

The solution's most valuable feature is deduplication. Also, its features for file and block protocols work the best.

The solution could be more flexible in terms of configuration. Also, they should increase the product range or configuration models for more storage options.

I have been using the solution for more than ten years.

The solution is stable and highly available.

The solution is highly scalable. Its FAS2700 series can scale up to more than 1000 terabytes.

The solution has good technical support. Also, the logs created by the system are self-explanatory. So customers can quickly solve the problems. As a certified engineer, I have resolved all the queries.

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward.

The solution is more expensive than other vendors. Although, its cost depends on the use cases and configurations required.

NetApp offers bundled products along with the purchase of the storage system. Thus, the customers don't have to pay recurring licensing fees, including the upgrades. There is no expiry for storage licenses. The customers have to pay for support services. The price for the initial configuration might appear more expensive than other competitors. But it tends to be lower after a specific time.

The solution has a unique product line. It is suitable for small-scale as well as large-scale enterprises. I advise others to thoroughly understand their business requirements before buying the solution. If you need a FAS solution, go for NetApp. But if you require high-density storage, a direct-attached storage solution might be more suitable for your use cases.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The product is flexible. 

Everythink is ok. 

I have been working with the product for four to five years. 

The product is stable. 

The solution is scalable. It is recommended for medium companies. 

The product's setup is easy and takes one working day to complete. One person is enough to implement the solution. 

The product's pricing is reasonable. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. The tool is the best one in the market in terms of pricing and features. 

The product is used for multitenancy and backups. We use it for different solutions.

Having multiple applications with different protocols running on the same system benefits our organization. The direction is unified. We can manage our applications from a single dashboard.

The product has a unified technology. We can use different protocols from the same controller. It is a unified solution that allows users to run multiple applications on a single storage.

The product must support more drives.

I have been working with the product for more than nine years.

The product is very stable.

The tool is scalable. It depends on the models, though. The entry-level models have limited scalability.

The technical support is very good. It can be better, though.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. We have to make the connection if we have some external drives to connect to the shells. Then, we power the shells and connect them to the controller. Once the system is up, we must create the aggregate and the volumes and mark them to the server. The deployment doesn’t take time, but the connectivity and the layout of the network take time. The whole process can be completed within an hour.

The resources needed depend on the scale of deployment. If I have many shells to configure, I will need people’s help. Otherwise, I can do everything myself. It is not difficult to maintain the tool.

The product provides a good value for money.

Pricing is very relative. It depends on the customers' budgets. NetApp has a good discount structure that finds a way to accommodate the customer's budget.

I worked with the solution about three weeks ago. We are partners. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We offer the solution to customers with unified storage without any gateway.

Snapshot, deduplication, and compression features are valuable. I also like the product’s OS. The product is the most reliable because it is based on Linux.

NetApp needs to put its OS on a microchip rather than on disks. The product uses flash storage for caches. The solution could improve the cache memory in storage. Though the storage is being used for backups and archival, there is still room for improvement in the increment of cache memory and storage.

I have been using the solution for almost ten years. We are proposing the FAS2700 series to our customers.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight or nine out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. We have almost 100 users in Pakistan. Our customers are medium and enterprise-level businesses.

We have a team of certified NetApp engineers. We are also very comfortable with the technical team.

Positive

The initial setup was fine. I rate the ease of setup an eight or nine out of ten. It took us one or two days to deploy the solution.

We usually get a scope of work from the customer before deploying the solution. We then plan everything and design the storage according to the scope of work.

I rate the solution’s pricing seven or eight out of ten. If we want a ransomware solution with the product or other extended features, we need to pay an extra cost. That’s why there are different licensing costs for the product.

Customers who want large-scale files can afford the solution. The product is very good for archival purposes and to protect large files. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.