Evaluate Storage Engineer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check depth across block, file and object: NetApp ONTAP or Pure arrays, Fibre Channel zoning on Brocade fabrics, multipathing, snapshots, SnapMirror or async replication, S3. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names array models, LUN and aggregate layouts, zoning schemes and replication modes, with clear reasoning on IOPS, latency and RAID protection levels. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate describes a completed migration with petabytes moved, cutover plan, rollback path, and measured latency or utilisation outcomes afterwards.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Technical depth
35% weight
Check depth across block, file and object: NetApp ONTAP or Pure arrays, Fibre Channel zoning on Brocade fabrics, multipathing, snapshots, SnapMirror or async replication, S3 tiering.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.
4
Very Good
Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.
5
Excellent
Names array models, LUN and aggregate layouts, zoning schemes and replication modes, with clear reasoning on IOPS, latency and RAID protection levels.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Probe migrations and builds they owned: array refreshes, datastore evacuations, vSAN or Ceph clusters, capacity added in TB, downtime windows honoured, DR failover tests actually executed.
Evidence to listen for
Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
States their own scope inside the project
Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
Explains what went wrong and what they changed
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.
3
Satisfactory
Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.
4
Very Good
Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.
5
Excellent
Describes a completed migration with petabytes moved, cutover plan, rollback path, and measured latency or utilisation outcomes afterwards.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test how they chase latency spikes, path flapping, failed disk rebuild storms or backup windows overrunning, using array counters, esxtop, iostat and fabric error logs.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
Distinguishes correlation from cause
Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.
2
Needs Improvement
Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.
5
Excellent
Walks a real incident from symptom to root cause across host, fabric and array layers, citing the counters and logs that isolated it.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Assess work with DBAs, virtualisation and backup teams on capacity forecasts, tiering policies, RPO and RTO commitments, change advisory boards and vendor support escalations.
Evidence to listen for
Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
Documents decisions so others can act on them
Takes review feedback without defensiveness
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.
3
Satisfactory
Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.
4
Very Good
Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.
5
Excellent
Shows negotiated capacity and RPO agreements, clear runbooks handed to operations, and vendor cases driven to resolution without stalling projects.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Storage Engineer
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
What is your experience with Storage Area Networks and network-attached storage?
02
Do you have experience with flash storage or NVMe?
03
What is your knowledge of distributed storage systems such as Ceph or similar platforms?
04
Can you discuss a project where you designed and implemented a storage strategy from scratch?
05
What strategies do you use to manage large volumes of data?
