Amazon S3 vs Azure NetApp Files

• Highly available and redundant; we do not worry about the service having downtime
• Simple usage from multiple different frameworks using Amazon's SDKs, or roll your own
• A large number of bucket policies and security adjustments to tailor usage to customer needs
• Regional support for storing assets in particular locations around the world

Read full review

• We have found that it scales very well. In some cases we had a large existing storage infrastructure and were able to migrate it while other times we started from scratch with low storage demands and Azure NetApp Files fit the bill each time.
• We have been impressed with the replication capabailities.
• The read and write speed when interacting with files is a major asset.

Read full review

• No support for object versions retention: There can be a retention policy(days or number) for object versions that are stored in S3 so that we don't have to worry about paying extra for all the old versions of an object in the bucket.
• No feature for replication within a region: Currently AWS does not support replication within a region. Also, having to enable versioning for buckets in which you need replication makes it even more costly.
• Confusing pricing: The pricing model of S3 can be a little confusing for a new customer with questions regarding data transfer from other AWS services, between buckets or data transfer to the outside world.

Read full review

• It does not support file locking although its available as an add-on
• Design is far from native and has a learning curve
• We would like to have backup functionality built in so that we don't run into the issue where the replication process makes a copy of the corrupted data.

Read full review

• It practically eliminated some real heavy storage servers from our premises and reduced maintenance cost.
• The excellent durability and reliability make sure the return of money you invested in.
• If the objects which are not active or stale, one needs to remove them. Those objects keep adding cost to each billing cycle. If you are handling a really big infrastructure, sometimes this creates quite a huge bill for preserving un-necessary objects/documents.

Read full review

• Positive impact includes getting high performance when working with huge volumes of data along with low latency.
• Did not encounter any negative impact as such except that it is comparatively costly than similar other services, but then it is tradeoff price vs performance.

Read full review