Azure NetApp Files is a Microsoft Azure file storage service built on NetApp technology, giving users the file capabilities in Azure that core business applications require, with pricing plans for different performance tiers.
$21,474,836.48
per month
IBM Power Virtual Server
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
IBM presents their Power Systems Virtual Server as a scalable, cost-effective way to run IBM AIX, IBM i and Linux workloads.
N/A
Pricing
Azure NetApp Files
IBM Power Virtual Server
Editions & Modules
Restore
$0.02/GiB
per month
Backup
$0.05/GiB
per month
Cross Region Replication Daily - Replication frequency is once a day
$0.11/GiB
per month
Cross Region Replication Hourly - Replication frequency is every 1 hour
$0.12/GiB
per month
Cross Region Replication Minutes - Replication frequency is every 10 mins
$0.14/GiB
per month
Standard Storage
$0.14746 per GiB
per month
Premium Storage
$0.29419 per GiB
per month
Ultra Storage
$0.39274 per GiB
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure NetApp Files
IBM Power Virtual Server
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
Azure NetApp Files (ANF) cloud file storage service is charged per hour based on the provisioned ANF capacity. Customers can provision a minimum of 4TiB of ANF capacity and then add additional provision capacity in the increments of 1TiB. Cross Region Replication pricing varies by the desired replication frequency per unit of data, and the region of the destination volume.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure NetApp Files
IBM Power Virtual Server
Features
Azure NetApp Files
IBM Power Virtual Server
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
Comparison of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) features of Product A and Product B
In my opinion, I would say it is more suitable to huge workloads, where you really needs the reliability and performance that a Netapp storage provides to you, larger share sizes, etc. Use cases where you really needs to store large amounts of non-structured data. It is not a cheap solution, I mean, you can find other options to store your data on the Cloud at smaller prices. So, for small companies, or companies that depends mostly on web-applications, or don't have such a specific requirements, I would not go with Azure Netapp Files.
It is really impactful in terms of scenarios like ERP systems and Data Analytics where heavy data needs to be analysed in terms of volume and their needs to be high scalability offering so in that scenario it is a great asset and features like distribution of workload using AI capabilities by leveraging modern IBM offerings like Watson is really helpful the area in which it could improve is native development of application in terms of adoption of New cloud Technologies
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.
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.
At the moment we are 100% satisfied with the performance and our support team is well used to the process involved. So unless we have some major issues in adopting, we are sure to be with IBM itself.
I would rate IBM Power Virtual Server’s overall usability as an 8 out of 10. The platform offers a solid interface and intuitive dashboard, making it relatively easy for users with cloud experience to navigate. Its scalability and flexibility are strong points. However, the learning curve for new users can be steep, especially when dealing with complex integrations or configurations. While documentation and support are extensive, some users may find the setup process challenging. Overall, it’s highly functional but could be streamlined further for beginners.
As with most IBM products the ongoing support for IBM Power Virtual Server is solid and consistent. IBM provides a clear roadmap for receiving support of their products. Both voice and online response is offered. It is obvious that IBM has the internal systems and culture to maintain support functions. This starts from the initial support call to the problem analysis and continues through the problem resolution. Documentation and communication are consistent within this process.
Azure NetApp Files is very well integrated with Microsoft Azure, we use the same request methods that everyone knows from Azure. NetApp and Microsoft has built a very efficient solution that allows you to transfer virtually any service to the Microsoft public cloud. Azure NetApp Files also protects our data very well.
They both have their own ups and downs and it totally depends on the team which suits them best. IBM Power Virtual Server has Performance, Scalability, Reliability and Availability, Compatibility, and Good Vendor Support. The specific use case and workload requirements played a significant role. Some workloads may benefit from IBM Power Systems' architecture, while others may perform equally well on alternative platforms.
I would rate IBM Cognos Analytics’ scalability as a 9 out of 10. The platform is highly capable of handling large volumes of data and supporting thousands of users with ease. Its architecture is designed for high performance, though it may require fine-tuning for extremely complex data environments to maintain optimal performance.
The main hurdle in promoting this solution is the price. Its price definitely requires an improvement. It is more expensive than other options, so customers go for a cheaper option.
There have also been 80% fewer application crashes due to a lack of resources that previously ran on the X86 platform.
Administration management has been simplified and staff can dedicate themselves to the development of applications, instead of providing support to users when the applications do not respond efficiently, this made staff 45% more productive.