Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with NetApp SnapMirror.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
The price needs to be improved. It is not that it is too high, but it would be good to be reduced. There is new technology available that is using storage called NVMe with the drives. We are now using a scanning device called a Standard SATA Drive.
This solution is stable but needs improvements with the network. In the next release, I would like to see data reduction included and WAN optimization.
We have different families of storage, such as the E-Series and Flash systems, but NetApp cannot be set up between them. Currently, there is only a command-line interface, but some users would benefit from the inclusion of a graphical user interface.
The new coursework models need to be improved. The bandwidth monitoring could also be better.
In the next release, I would like to get an active IP number solution.
The product itself doesn't have any big issues. What is lacking and what we need to use other products for, is to have active data centers. You need to implement another solution for it, but that is also available from NetApp. So I don't think there is an option to put that into SnapMirror either. It's lacking that functionality but it's available with other solutions from the same vendor.
The user interface could be simplified. They might want to have fewer options on it, to make it less complicated. There are a lot of options we never use ourselves. They're often very specialized and don't apply to us.
At the moment, we are not using the synchronous mirror, but we can implement the synchronous mirror. The only thing is that it needs another license. This is the same issue we have with business continuity. It needs another license to be implemented. You need too many separate licenses for the features. They should add some of the aspects of the premium bundle into the basic bundle. Sometimes our customers choose other replication services because of the initial cost of the licenses.
It is not as efficient as it needs to be. It doesn't compress the data really well when it is forwarded to a secondary site. The download performance could be better. Our company is Oman, and there is a ticketing problem here. If there are issues, we have to go to the partner who did the implementation. We need to contact the partner, then the partner has to get the log, and then they will raise the ticket on our behalf. After that, the tech support team contacts the partner and then it gets to us. We would like to get support ourselves or the ability to directly log the ticket or even call without having to go through the partner. We want to report the problem to tech support directly and then take it from there. In terms of improvements for the solution, I think they already have a different product, AFF, where you can get much better performance and more combination as well as data security and data savings, if they have a different protocol already, which they are lacking now.