We performed a comparison between Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"EFS is flexible."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The solution is scalable."
"SnapMirror helps mirror metadata and data volumes between endpoints in a data fabric."
"The stability has been really good."
"For us, the value comes from the solution's flexibility, speed, and hopefully cost savings in the long term."
"There is unified storage, which provides flexibility. It is set up perfectly for performance and provisioning. We are able to monitor everything using a separate application. It provides error and critical warnings that allow us to take immediate action through ONTAP. We are able to manage everything, log a case, and follow up with the support team, who can fix it. That is how it is unified."
"It gives a solution for storage one place to go across everything. So, the customer is very familiar with NetApp on-prem. It allows them to gain access to the file piece. It helps them with the training aspect of it, so they don't have to relearn something new. They already know this product. They just have to learn some widgets or what it's like in the cloud to operate and deploy it in different ways."
"This solution has made everything easier to do."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"The solution’s Snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery are good. Snapshot copies are pretty much the write-in time data backups. Obviously, critical data is snapshotted a lot more frequently, and even clients and end users find it easier to restore whatever they need if it's file-based, statical, etc."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"It should be simplified. There are people who don't have cloud experience. It should be storage that we are able to just connect to."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I'm very happy with the solution, the only thing that needs improvement is the web services API. It could be a little bit more straightforward. That's my only issue with it. It can get pretty complex."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"When it comes to a critical or a read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the performance that some applications require, especially for SAP. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not fit there. It could be used for other databases, where the requirements are not so demanding, especially when it comes to write-latency."
"We've just been dealing with general pre-requisite infrastructure configuration challenges. Once those are out of the way, it is easy."
"The navigation on some of the configuration parameters is a bit cumbersome, making the learning curve on functions somewhat steep."
"Multipathing for iSCSI LUNs is difficult to deal with from the client-side and I'd love to see a single entry point that can be moved around within the cluster to simplify the client configuration."
"I would like this solution to be brought to all the three major players. Right now it's supported only on AWS and Azure. They should bring it to Google as well, because we would like to have flexibility in choosing the underlying cloud storage provider."
"We have customers that are still using IBM mainframes and that very old SNA architecture from IBM. There are questions about how you interconnect the data on the mainframe side... But I don't know if it's worth it for NetApp to invest in developing products to include mainframes for a few customers."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is ranked 5th in Cloud Storage with 10 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Storage with 60 reviews. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is rated 8.6, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) writes "Offers integration capabilities that improve areas like storage and security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, Google Cloud Storage, Amazon S3 Glacier, Azure NetApp Files and Amazon S3, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Portworx Enterprise and Red Hat Ceph Storage. See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
See our list of best Cloud Storage vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
