Yes, I use this extensively for exchange at my current job and VMware at my old job. It works fine. Performance will depend on the hardware, and generally stack up well with other options. 

Tiering is a different concept in Netapp than it is in the other vendors you mentioned. On Netapp, you use SSD in an aggregate, or on the controller. If it's on the aggregate, it's called flashpool. On the controller, flashcash. They have different sets of advantages and disadvantages compared to each other- but you can't tier between different types of hard drives like with those other boxes. 

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016, Eric Peng <epeng@esri.com> wrote:

Folks,

 

Does anyone have experience with running production workloads on FC-based LUNs on NetApp?  Am curious to know how performance of hosting virtual machines (including Exchange, database environments) compares to more traditional block-based SANs (EMC, 3Par, Hitachi, etc), since what I’ve read is that NetApp’s LUNs feature still sits on top of WAFL?

 

We have some native FAS NetApps, along with many N-series rebranded NetApps, but all are run in 7-Mode and using NFS connections.

 

Also, how do you all implement data tiering in your NetApp environments?  We are currently using IBM SAN (Storwize/V7000) and this has tiering capability.  We’d consider moving some SAN workloads to NetApp if we could get as good SAN performance and also address the tiering capability.

 

Thanks,

 

Eric Peng | Enterprise Storage Systems Administrator
Esri | 380 New York St. | Redlands, CA 92373 | USA
T 909 793 2853 x3567 | M 909 367 1691
epeng@esri.com | esri.com