Cisco Storage Area Networking vs. NetApp AFF A-Series

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco Storage Area Networking
Score 10.0 out of 10
N/A
The vendor states that the Cisco MDS 9000 multilayer SAN switches can help lower the total cost of ownership (TCO) of storage environments. They combine what the vendor describes as a robust, flexible hardware architecture with multiple layers of network and storage-management intelligence. With them, users can build highly available, scalable storage networks with advanced security and unified management.N/A
NetApp AFF A-Series
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
NetApp AFF A-Series All Flash Arrays are the company's flagship flash storage solutions.N/A
Pricing
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Features
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Enterprise Flash Array Storage
Comparison of Enterprise Flash Array Storage features of Product A and Product B
Cisco Storage Area Networking
-
Ratings
NetApp AFF A-Series
8.3
Ratings
8% below category average
Flash Array Performance00 Ratings9.10 Ratings
Flash Array Integration00 Ratings9.10 Ratings
Data Compression00 Ratings6.40 Ratings
Non-Intrusive Upgrades00 Ratings8.20 Ratings
Simplicity00 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Power Savings00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
NetApp FAS Storage Arrays
NetApp FAS Storage Arrays
Score 9.9 out of 10
Pure Storage FlashArray
Pure Storage FlashArray
Score 10.0 out of 10
Enterprises
NetApp AFF A-Series
NetApp AFF A-Series
Score 9.0 out of 10
Pure Storage FlashArray
Pure Storage FlashArray
Score 10.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Likelihood to Recommend
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Performance
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco Storage Area NetworkingNetApp AFF A-Series
Likelihood to Recommend
The best scenario where we found the Cisco Storage Area Networking is best suited is for an architecture where we need a robust technology that provides high level SLAs regarding downtime due to maintenance activities. Our infrastructure provides the core to our Data analytics team, which provides the data needed for our commercial and management leaders to make the right decisions thanks to the data. We need our infrastructure to be robust and reliable, when it runs smoothly, we can focus on other aspects of IT Infrastructure areas, giving our inside business clients the service they need.
Read full review
Easy interface and the accessibility of the features are effective and this solution functionalities on data migration and processing of different from other packages is amazing. NetApp AFF A-Series All Flash Arrays is the most secure platform for easy management of all the business and project data and the capacity planning tools and even the configuration options are the best and easy to use.
Read full review
Pros
  • Provide low latency SAN access
  • Easy to configure configuration language
  • Great support from vendor
  • No loss of service when doing maintenance activities
Read full review
  • Protective multiple project and business data is excellent.
  • Solutions for data storage and data migration.
  • Providing useful and quality data reports is effective.
Read full review
Cons
  • Centralized Management through DCNM
  • Cost (Port License Cost vs New Switch)
  • 3rd Party SFP+ Compatibility
  • Smart Zoning (personally prefer SIMT)
Read full review
  • As always, Netapp upgrades are really painful. I wish there was an easy way of upgrading Netapp.
  • GUI is hard to use and CLI is even worse. GUI is confusing and you click all over the place before you get over the learning curve. CLI has changed from the 7-mode days and is very confusing to use. I have had scenarios where the support themselves use documentation to put in the proper commands.
  • Like any array, Netapp's CDOT has it's own bugs in the software. We learnt the hard way when one of our nodes went down and a bug prevented take over of SCSI services which resulted in an APD situation on all our ESXI hosts. Was a nightmare rebooting all the VM's and ESXI's to relieve them of the APD's. People don't pay millions towards a storage platform to go through nightmares.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
Our organizations primary storage platform is NetApp AFF-A900 nodes. All our storage requirements, be it storage visible to our compute either using FC or NFS is through these nodes. The shares or CIFS too are setup on these nodes. We also use the fabric pool to write the data to NetApps Storage Grid
Read full review
Performance
Has always worked just as it should.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
We looked at the Brocade G series and IBM SAN switches, but the seamless integration into our AAA suite and availability of skills in our local market were big factors. We also have these deployed in FlexPod and VxBlock environments, which the reference architectures provide additional confidence in the solutions overall compatibility, supportability and sustainability.
Read full review
The IBM All Flash FAS was similar in performance and price, but we were already a NetApp shop. This made the decision easier to go with the NetApp AFF system so it would tie in with our SnapManager architecture, as well as keep the learning curve short.
Read full review
Scalability
We tend to not deploy MDS's in an ISL deployment pattern, rather deploying a single unit with high enough port density to suit our requirements. Our standard switches are either 9248 or 9396's. My only issue is the high cost of adding additional port licenses "golden screwdrivers" for existing infrastructure. Historically its been cheaper to add a new switch and ISL than add additional licenses if you only have 1/4 to 1/2 licensed.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • No connection drops
  • Allowed easy management of the UCS Chassis
  • Allows fast data transfers
Read full review
  • Epic, our EMR providor, has very aggressive guidelines for performance. The Netapp AFF meets those guidlines easily eben in a mixed workload environment. This has helped us meet our business objectives by not having to diversify our storage platforms or vendors.
  • Multi-protocol support (block (ISCSI/FiberChannel) or File (NFS/CIFS)) Allows us to use the Netapp systems to solve all storage requirements regardless of the system needing storage
  • Clustered technologies along with non-disruptive movement of data between nodes on the cluster make hardware refreshes simple and allows the business to keep running without interruption even during massive data moves.
Read full review
ScreenShots