NetApp's ONTAP Data Management Software is a storage and data management and protection solution. ONTAP 9 allows users to build an intelligent hybrid cloud that is the foundation of a NetApp Data Fabric that spans flash, disk, and cloud. Flexibly deploy storage on a choice of architectures—hardware storage systems, software-defined storage (SDS), and the cloud—while unifying data management across all of them.
N/A
Red Hat Gluster Storage
Score 6.0 out of 10
N/A
Red Hat Gluster Storage is a software-defined storage option; Red Hat acquired Gluster in 2011.
I have highly benefited from the performance of this great tool. Storage and data management programs have been running as planned since we deployed this system. Under NetApp ONTAP Data Management Software our data and customers contacts are always secure. It has helped our company in reducing storage costs as we can safely use cloud storage services. It gives us continuity guarantee even after our systems fail to function due to strong backup system.
GFS is well suited for DEVOPS type environments where organizations prefer to invest in servers and DAS (direct attached storage) versus purchasing storage solutions/appliances. GFS allows organizations to scale their storage capacity at a fraction of the price using DAS HDDs versus committing to purchase licenses and hardware from a dedicated storage manufacturer (e.g. NetApp, Dell/EMC, HP, etc.).
Scales; bricks can be easily added to increase storage capacity
Performs; I/O is spread across multiple spindles (HDDs), thereby increasing read and write performance
Integrates well with RHEL/CentOS 7; if your organization is using RHEL 7, Gluster (GFS) integrates extremely well with that baseline, especially since it's come under the Red Hat portfolio of tools.
More details on network interfaces are available in CLI. Would like to see similar visibility on the GUI.
Deleting volumes that have been snapmirrored have to be released at the snapmirror destination first. Would be nice to have that feature at the source where you are deleting the volume.
When creating a volume in the GUI it adds to the default junction point. Would be nice to choose the junction point as you were creating the volume (this is a feature available in the CLI).
Documentation; using readthedocs demonstrates that the Gluster project isn't always kept up-to-date as far as documentation is concerned. Many of the guides are for previous versions of the product and can be cumbersome to follow at times.
Self-healing; our use of GFS required the administrator to trigger an auto-heal operation manually whenever bricks were added/removed from the pool. This would be a great feature to incorporate using autonomous self-healing whenever a brick is added/removed from the pool.
Performance metrics are scarce; our team received feedback that online RDBMS transactions did not perform well on distributed file systems (such as GFS), however this could not be substantiated via any online research or white papers.
NetApp support is always second to none. That being said I have never once had to contact support for the NetApp System Manager software. It is simple, stable and easy to use. Given that their support is stellar in all other areas I don't see how this would be any different
I have only used NetApp ONTAP Select platform in our organization in data storage and file management. It has efficiently managed all data-related problems and gives us the right roadmap of managing data from all sources effectively. Data migration from our company to the cloud storage datasets has been easy and secure. It provides reliable intelligence from all information gathered from our data sources that enhances better operations and smart decisions.
Gluster is a lot lower cost than the storage industry leaders. However, NetApp and Dell/EMC's product documentation is (IMHO) more mature and hardened against usage in operational scenarios and environments. Using Gluster avoids "vendor lock-in" from the perspective on now having to purchase dedicated hardware and licenses to run it. Albeit, should an organization choose to pay for support for Gluster, they would be paying licensing costs to Red Hat instead of NetApp, Dell, EMC, HP, or VMware. It could be assumed, however, that if an organization wanted to use Gluster, that they were already a Linux shop and potentially already paying Red Hat or Canonical (Debian) for product support, thereby the use of GFS would be a nominal cost adder from a maintenance/training perspective.
Previously were were running with just locally attached storage across all of our estate. With this tool we are not able to simplify the management of storage saving on resource usage across our Ops teams allowing us to focus on "more important" tasks.
