Classic System Manager gone in 9.8 ?

[Greg_Wilson]

Just fired up a 9.8 OTS instance and it looks like Classic System Manager has been removed.

Does anyone else actually like this "New" (but totally worse than the one it replaced) interface ?

It just seems so counter intuitive to what I need to do.

Looks like back to CLI for me

[Mjizzini · Accepted solution]

Beginning with 9.7, System Manager uses REST API calls vs ZAPI call in previous versions.

 There are RFEs/Burts open to address unsupported featured.  

Example:

DP (data protection) policies are not supported in REST API

[pedro_rocha]

Greg, I feel the same!

When I was running 9.7, I never used the new GUI, just hit to the "old" experience.

I haven't check 9.8, but that is sad news. I do not know how NetApp could worsen the GUI in the way...

Regards,

Pedro Rocha.

[paul_stejskal]

I'd recommend talking to your account team about this. It is a major pain point for a lot of users it seems, so they can help prioritize fixes with engineering.

[gsxrrcr]

But there is a link to return to the classic version??? I hate this.

[pedro_rocha]

I saw it on 9.7. Apparently they removed this in 9.8

[hippogigantica]

Yeah, it's a pretty horrible experience.  The old client wasn't perfect, but it did a great job of throwing lots of useful data in contextually relevant views.  The new version is incredibly slow (in my experience), and keeps making calls that require wait time just to scroll down a list of volumes, interfaces, etc.  Definitely dropping use of the system manager product.

[Ragesh]

this new interface is very bad,  some options are removed from system manager 

• Deduplication information on volume – 
• Flash Pool /SSD pool creation – 

Another risky thing what i found is  when you try to delete object ( volume, aggregate, lif) there is no re-confirmation window, it just delete it 

[nigelg1965]

I agree, the 9.8 GUI is terrible compared to the previously ones. NetApp need to resolve this or is it fixed 9.9?

[hippogigantica]

Yep, the new GUI is still terrible, and I'd say marking this as issue as "solved" is misleading.  Maybe Netapp could fix the product first, then mark the issue as resolved.