NETAPP EF560A 12GB CTRL ISCSI 4PORT
Mfg.Part: EF-X561206A-R6-C | CDW Part: 3609679
NETAPP EF560A 12GB CTRL ISCSI 4PORT
NETAPP EF560A 12GB CTRL ISCSI 4PORT is rated out of 5 by 4.
Rated 4 out of 5 by Rob Stickland from It is faster than XtremIO. We use it for our VDI environment. Valuable Features:The most valuable feature is its speed. We had a bake off with another product in our data center, and it blew it away, without any question. It was about 100% faster than the XtremIO ( https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/dell-emc-xtremio-flash-storage ). It was just pure speed.We use it for our VDI ( https://www.itcentralstation.com/categories/virtual-desktop ) environment, and have not had any complaints with it.Improvements to My Organization:We're able to quickly roll out close to 2,000 VDIs with very little setup. I've had familiarity with a different model of the NetApp ( https://www.itcentralstation.com/vendors/netapp ) device. It was mostly a matter of rolling it over to the new one. It was very easy to work with. The familiarity with it and the speed of it; I can't complain.Room for Improvement:At this point, we haven't really gotten that far in our stages of it. The scalability is what we need. The administration is really easy. The best way I can say this is, keep on keeping on. It's going to grow organically.If anything else, I would like to see higher-capacity drives, as they come out; I have heard that 15 TB are out on a different NetApp series. Getting those on the EFs would be nice. That's maybe a pipe dream. The EF series doesn't have them quite yet. I don't think they're really designed yet for the EF series, from what I’ve heard from a couple of solutions engineers. If that happens, great; if it doesn't, great.Stability Issues:I have not had any stability issues with it. We actually have two shelves for over a year now. It does not give us any problems. We're not even really pushing it either. That's kind of the other good side of it. It's got a lot of capacity, a lot of IO availability, and bandwidth. It just works.Scalability Issues:Everything we've wanted to do, scale-wise, it's done. We started off with one shelf, got about 2,000 VDIs on it; put another shelf in, not a problem. It was about as easy as you can make it.Technical Support:Unfortunately, we have not used technical support. It hasn't had an issue for us to do that, yet. In the 15 months that I've been there, I haven't had to call support for that product.Previous Solutions:XtremIO is a nice product, but it has so much more overhead. Deduplication ( https://www.itcentralstation.com/categories/deduplication-software ) involves a little bit more overhead than what the EF does. I kind of look at EF as a dragster as opposed to a road course racer. The EF just goes straight line. It does what it's supposed to do; not a lot of frills, but it does its job really well. XtremIO is a bit more tuned for a general-purpose workload; not so much speed. It's still flash, but the overhead on the XtremIO was more than what we need it for. The price point was better on the EF. You get more speed, better capacity, and better price. The EF was a better value.The disadvantages of the XtremIO were the speed and the capacity. I think it was a very similar scale out for the XtremIO. It was very similar in size. It was a little bit smaller because there was more overhead; different metadata for the XtremIO. It required a little bit more controller size, and so on.Also, it was a 4U brick versus a 2U brick. We basically get twice the capacity of two shelves for NetApp versus one brick from XtremIO. The scalability was one of the big features as well.When selecting a vendor to work with, the one that provides the best value is the most important criteria; does it hit the most amount of needs that we have; once we determine what our requirements are, and how we go forward. What's the best for us? We may spend a little bit different money on something else, but that has to be of a specific need that we need to fit. Basically, what's the best value?Initial Setup:As I’ve mentioned, from familiarity with a different version of the product, initial setup was very easy for us. My cohorts and partners in crime are very familiar with it. They have no problem looking at it, either, and understanding what's going on with it. It's been a very good product for us.Other Advice:If you can get a bake off, do that. Try to get the same type of test across the board. Put it through its paces. Definitely get your solutions engineers involved; almost pit them against each other. Ask a lot of questions, and really find out what the requirements are. Get them in there and try them out. You lose nothing, except a little bit of time. If you can spend better money the first time out, you look better as an engineer and a person that can influence purchasing.I have not given it a perfect rating because, as I’ve mentioned, it doesn’t have some features. At the same time, I have rated it high because it does its job really, really well; what we require of it.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2017-09-25
Rated 4 out of 5 by StorageAe484 from Having the option of high-speed storage in the data center is valuable. Valuable Features:Having the option of such high-speed storage in the data center is what makes it valuable. When a request comes in a for an application that requires something on flash, I have the EF to go. I know that whatever the application is, it can't beat it.Room for Improvement:They could improve the product’s tools. We're going to tie it into our FAS system because the options we have with the FAS system are much greater than the options we have with the EF series. Things like the FlexClones, SnapVault, Snapmirror, all of that. Some of it's available on the EF series, but we like what we have in the FAS system. If the EF were to have that, we would not need to tie it into our FAS system.Use of Solution:I have been using it for about a year and a half.Stability Issues:It’s a stable solution. We have not had an outage in a year and a half.Scalability Issues:It is scalable. We're about to roll it into our other NetApp products. That, along with the FAS system, makes it scalable for us, at least.Technical Support:Technical support is good; maybe not as good as others, but they're good. It’s a case of finding the right person. NetApp's a pretty large company, with a vast array of protocols and products to dive through when you're trying to troubleshoot a problem. It just depends on the person you get when you call in. Sometimes, it's the best. Sometimes, it's not so much the best. They're good. They could always be better.Previous Solutions:We have multiple hybrid solutions, but nothing pure flash like the EF. We have been using the hybrid solutions for five years. The trigger to moving to EF was that the cost of flash has come down, and the need for flash has gone up.Initial Setup:For initial setup, we had somebody onsite. We were doing the flash install along with the transition from 7-mode to CDOT. We had professional services onsite to assist us with that.Other Advice:What is your use case? Depending on what your needs are, I would point to maybe the all-flash FAS. If it was just a one-off, one project, throw everything at it, then I'd say definitely the EF would be the most cost-effective solution.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2016-11-10
Rated 4 out of 5 by Andrea Stefano Sardu from Almost all of our infrastructure is on cDOT, and now we are able to have a single point of management for all our data. The CLI is very difficult to manage. Valuable Features:The most valuable feature for us is the ability to move the workload between peers. It also has a huge advantage of helping us cut down on power consumption.Improvements to My Organization:Almost all of our infrastructure is on cDOT, and now we are able to have a single point of management for all our data.Room for Improvement:It's very difficult to manage the CLI. Also, the license model needs work. If you read the label as probable, you need to pay for a license for all the features, even if you are using just one.Use of Solution:We've been using it for one year.Deployment Issues:I guess at the end of this year or the beginning of the next, we will finish the migration of the whole infrastructure.Stability Issues:9/10 - The problem is about the failover of the interfaces for some problems. We had some issues last week because of the interface of a cluster physically remained up, but we had a report noting issues with traffic management on it.Customer Service:8/10Technical Support:8/10Previous Solutions:No previous solution was used.Initial Setup:It was simple.Implementation Team:It was done in-house.Other Solutions Considered:We looked at EMC and IBM, but we chose EF because of the need to take snapshots and to save it to another system.Other Advice:It must be evaluated depending on the workload of the applications.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2015-11-19
Rated 4 out of 5 by Frank Haussmann from Our batch processing time went down from 14 hours to seven, but because NetApp acquired the product it's missing a bit in the integration and management performance monitoring. Valuable Features:The most valuable feature for us is its low latency, which is the main reason we bought it. We had performance issues before, and this was a great solution to those problems.Improvements to My Organization:We run our data warehouse on it and batch processing needs to happen in a certain time frame. If we can’t deliver data processing in eight hours, then we have to keep the system closed for end users at that time. Ideally, we need it done by the start of business in the US, because if we finish late, people can’t start working until after that. Our batch processing time went down from 14 hours to seven hours with this solution.Room for Improvement:It says NetApp on the badge, but it’s not a NetApp product. NetApp acquired the product so it is missing a bit in the integration and management performance monitoring.Use of Solution:We've used it for one-and-a-half years for OLTP databases.Stability Issues:It's very stable, and we've never had any problems with stability.Scalability Issues:We haven't had to scale it, but I'm sure it will scale.Customer Service:We haven't had to use customer service once yet.Technical Support:We haven't had to use technical service once yet.Previous Solutions:We used a traditional SAN array and replaced it with flash.Initial Setup:The initial setup was very straightforward.ROI:The situation we were in before limited people’s ability to do financial reporting and forecasting and analysis. Now, it’s not a problem because we are able to back everything up overnight and not cut into people’s work day.Cost and Licensing Advice:It cost us $160,000 to implement.Other Solutions Considered:* Pure Storage* EMC XtremIOWe went with NetApp because price per performance was better.Other Advice:Before investing in flash, you should be really sure that it is solving your problem. For us, it was really clear that latency was a big part of our issue, so flash was the solution.Disclaimer: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Date published: 2015-11-17