Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP

For archiving old data that is infrequently accessed it is perfect. You can choose to let it go into cold/glacier storage which saves even further costs but at the expense of accessibility. I like that you can set access rules to automatically move it to the next storage tier after a certain amount of time that it has not been accessed. I also use it a lot with PHP via the API. We have some custom in-house applications that have a fair amount of data uploaded into them. S3 has been a perfect solution to store these files, taking the load off web servers and never having issues with running out of storage.

Incentivized

It is well suited to store lower-tier data in the cloud to free up space on primary storage. For our use, it is really only currently viable for things like snapshots and backups. Other organizations may find it useful for secondary-tier archival storage as well. At this point, I don't really trust any cloud solution as primary storage for anything. This may change in the future, but for backups and such, it is a nice option.

Incentivized

• Reliable and secure way to store objects in cloud: Storing any type of file(text, pdf, doc, csv, etc) is very easy with S3. Fetching this stored content as and when you require is also pretty easy and can be done using both the console and AWS CLI. Appropriate permissions can be set up for buckets using IAM roles/policies.
• Versioning in buckets: S3 gives you a very handy feature to store multiple versions of objects stored in a bucket.
• Lifecycle policies: You can set up lifecycle policies in S3 that can move your older objects to IA or Glacier. This setup is very easy and can be done within minutes for a bucket.
• Replication: The cross-region replication that S3 provides is wonderful. Beware of the inter-regional data transfer costs though.

Incentivized

• Integrates into major Cloud vendors.
• Integrates with NetApp infrastructure.

Incentivized

• The biggest problem is to rename the bucket. There is no direct way to do it. One need to copy entire content to the different bucket with intended bucket name and then remove the old bucket. Sometimes it creates issues.
• There is no direct way to upload .zip file and extract it to inside the bucket.
• While uploading large files, sometimes you will find a drop of upload speed. I observe it so many times and while checking my internet speed, I find it absolutely perfect. So there must have something wrong on the AWS side.

Incentivized

• Tighter integration with third-party (non-storage) monitoring tools
• CMDB classifications break down when integrating with ServiceNow
• Migrating storage workloads from one cloud service provider to another

Incentivized

Due to princing, availability and scalability.

Incentivized

The UI could have some improvements (better filters) and there is a lack of some useful functionality, such as renaming an existing bucket: the latter is much needed in the context of rapidly evolving companies. Overall though, Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is easy to use and to onboard people and tools to, thanks to its various APIs and flexibility.

Incentivized

It depends on your tier within Amazon on how great of support you get. For us we have a dedicated Point of Contact that is great in taking in what we need and discussing it with the S3 team. The best thing is features we need or suggest have a good chance of landing on their roadmap.

Incentivized

Haven't had to use it.

Incentivized

S3 is the most mature simple storage service on the web. It has direct competitors from Google and Azure, as well as a bunch of other competitors that focus on different aspects. For example, Backblaze specializes on file backups, and while s3 can also be used for that, Backblaze provides a better price point in exchange for more focused functionality. S3 really shines in that it performs simple things astonishingly well, while also being flexible enough to stretch itself to other situations (data lakes, file mounts, backup/restores systems, web hosting, etc.).

Incentivized

ScienceLogic SL1 and SolarWinds Storage Resource Monitor (SRM) were the closest competitors to meeting our business objectives. Tivoli Storage Manager was not able to meet the initial requirements. There was a significant overlap of capabilities between ScienceLogic SL1, SolarWinds SRM, and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP. The latter provided a more positive and cohesive experience for our administrators and executives.

Incentivized

• Allows us to store large amounts of raw traffic from data providers to allow us to view data our systems received at particular times, in order to reconstruct inputs in case of errors
• Is capable of storing very large amounts of data cheaply without material impact to our business

Incentivized

• Increased costs at lower data volumes but better pricing by 20% over 10Tb
• Easier to manage storage volumes with NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
• Better performance with NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP

Incentivized