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 solution's technical support is good."
"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."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"EFS is flexible."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"The feature which I like the most is that it has the capabilities that the traditional storage system offers. It provides all the functionality. The deduplication and compression work exactly like ONTAP's traditional storage. So people who have experience with that find it very easy to manage."
"Its scalability is very good."
"This solution has made everything easier to do."
"CVO gives us the ability to access data as quickly as possible, which is critical because of the mission set we handle. Some things cannot wait. For example, we tried having the data in the cloud itself, but it took too long for us to retrieve it from cold or deep storage. If we have it ONTAP or on-prem, it's so much easier to pull it within minutes."
"So a lot of these licenses are at the rate that is required for capacity. So they're they're able to reduce the license consumption and also the consumption of the underlying cloud storage."
"The ability to do a straight SnapMirror from our on-prem to the cloud with no other data transitions is excellent."
"Its functionality and technical support are adequate to help prevent failure due to errors."
"We're using snapshots as well and it's a pretty useful feature. That is one of the main NetApp benefits. Knowing how to use snapshots in the on-prem environment, using snapshots on the cloud solution was natural for us."
"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 user activity needs to be more connected."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The interface seems strange and complicated."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"The automated deployment was a bit complex using the public APIs. When we had to deploy Cloud Volumes ONTAP on a regular basis using automation, It could be a bit of a challenge."
"The data tiering needs improvement. E.g., moving hard data to faster disks."
"The solution could be better when we're connecting to our S3 side of the house. Right now, it doesn't see it, and I'm not sure why."
"Something we would like to see is the ability to better manage the setup and tie it to our configuration management database. We manage our whole IT infrastructure out of that database."
"I would like some more performance matrices to know what it is doing. It has some matrices inherent to the Cloud Volumes ONTAP. But inside Cloud Manager, it would also be nice to see. You can have a little Snapshot, then drill down if you go a little deeper."
"Cloud Volumes ONTAP's interface could use an overhaul. Sometimes you have to dig around in Cloud Manager a little bit to find certain things. The layout could be more intuitive."
"The key feature, that we'd like to see in that is the ability to sync between regions within the AWS and Azure regions. We could use the cloud sync service, but we'd really like that native functionality within the cloud volume service."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
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 Oracle Cloud Object Storage, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Portworx Enterprise. 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.
