TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

NetApp MetroCluster vs. Windows Server Failover Clustering

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    NetApp MetroCluster

    Score6.3 out of 10
    N/ANetApp MetroCluster software is a solution that combines array-based clustering with synchronous replication to deliver continuous availability and zero data loss at the lowest cost. The vendor states administration of the array-based cluster is simpler because the dependencies and complexity normally associated with hostbased clustering are eliminated. MetroCluster immediately duplicates mission-critical data on a transaction-by-transaction basis, providing uninterrupted access to applications…N/A

    Windows Server Failover Clustering

    Score8.7 out of 10
    N/AWindows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) is a group of independent servers that work together to increase application and service availability.N/A
    Pricing
    NetApp MetroClusterWindows Server Failover Clustering
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    NetApp MetroClusterWindows Server Failover Clustering
    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
    NetApp MetroClusterWindows Server Failover Clustering
    Considered Both Products
    NetApp
    No answer on this topic
    Microsoft
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Would buy again
    9 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Delivers good value for the price
    9 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Happy with the feature set
    9 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    7 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Implementation went as expected
    8 Answers
    User Ratings
    NetApp MetroClusterWindows Server Failover Clustering
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    9.2
    (13 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    10.0
    (1 ratings)
    Usability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.7
    (4 ratings)
    Support Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.2
    (3 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    NetApp MetroClusterWindows Server Failover Clustering
    Likelihood to Recommend
    NetApp
    NetApp MetroCluster is suited for applications which require 100% uptime with no data loss. It is suitable for organizations who have the need to move their NAS services and workloads to another data center with minimal downtime and configuration. Due to the cost of the product, it is not well suited for NAS file shares that require greater than zero RPO and RTO's. NetApp asynchronous is better suited for this type of data.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    Windows ServerFailover Clustering works very well for applications that can sustain a short disconnect when failing over. It works, and works well, in providing single-node applications HA, meaning an active/passive setup. It is not a load balancing solution. Use NLB for that. Another area that it works well is when used in combination with Hyper-V. We set our Hyper-V hosts up as clusters, and those clusters also host clusters for SQL Server and other enterprise class applications like BMC's Control-M/Enterprise and Control-M/Server.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    NetApp
    • Data deduplication, compression, and compaction provide great savings compared to traditional host based storage
    • Multiprotocol support (NAS and SAN) provide great flexibility
    • Ability to easily run your workloads from either data center with minimal effort and no disruption was the key selling point
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • Live Migration of VMs between hosts. If you have sufficient network bandwidth, it is fast and I never had a failed live migration break the VM or kill it. Worst case is the live migration will fail (not enough RAM for example) but the VM always stayed up.
    • Windows Server Failover Clustering enables Scaleout Storage, which is probably the coolest feature Microsoft has to offer at this moment. It gives you Active-Active SMB file shares which can now be used by most Microsoft Services like MS SQL, Hyper-V, etc. and clients if Windows 8+
    • Cluster Validation is really complete and easy to understand. The validation gives you comprehensive error messages that help to diagnose and fix rapidly to get your Failover Cluster running in no time.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    NetApp
    • I would like to see more highly intelligent monitoring that can help determine where latency is coming from. Eg. Host, Array, Network or Fabric issues
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • The setup of the Windows Server Failover Clustering is complex, requiring different networks and multiple network cards.
    • Better integration between the Windows Failover clustering and Hyper-V. Unlike VMWare you have to make changes to two places instead of just one panel.
    • I wish there was a web portal to manage the cluster. Instead you have to remote desktop into the VIP address and go to the Cluster manager.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    NetApp
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft
    It has proven its value to us both for maintaining SLAs and providing the ability to perform much needed and regular systems maintenance without taking applications offline for more than a few seconds.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    NetApp
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft
    Usability of Failover Clustering on Windows Server is generally good. Failover Clustering console is not hard to understand if the complexity of the product is taken into account. Most of the task on the Cluster can be done via PowerShell, so automation is possible and not hard (PowerShell is very intuitive). Configuring storage is the hardest and most confusing task during cluster configuration, so storage configuration should be planned in advance. Cluster Validation Wizard is verbose but most of the errors are easy to understand.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    NetApp
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft
    Online documentation is excellent. Everything I needed to know, I learned from the online documentation. I haven't used phone support as I haven't needed to but would presume it is similar to Microsoft Support for other products that I've used. Phone support from Microsoft is hit and miss. It depends on who you get. That said, my rating is based on the online documentation.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    NetApp
    Have not used or evaluated any other NAS synchronous products.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    Both VMware and Microsoft Failover do the job and they both do it extremely well. For many bussiness and environments though, they will have the existing investment in a Microsoft environment and Microsoft infrastructure. The introduction of VMware will or may achieve the end result however it introduces new dimensions like support, licensing, documentation and ensuring the support team are trained.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    NetApp
    • By moving critical application data away from older based technology such as host based mirroring and to a centralized array based replication, the complexity of managing data from multiple source and destination servers has been removed.
    • The number of incidents compared to our previous legacy configuration is huge. Data uptime has been 100% available since the migration to NetApp MetroCluster.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • Failover Cluster gives us the power to do updates or hardware upgrade / change without having to create an outage. Which permit us not to work night shifts.
    • By creating one cluster with all Hyper-V servers, it enabled us to move VMs via live migration between host to balance RAM usage which was time consuming and took a lot of time over network before.
    • It created some problems that caused us to have to investigate quite some time before finding the cause. We encountered dll locking that caused the Failover Cluster to force-restart a host. Logs are really not the strong point of Failover Cluster Manager, and even Microsoft Support wasn't able to help much. We had to find the problem ourself.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots