We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's helped us because we've changed fundamentally what we talk about. We don't talk about storage and different tiers of storage anymore nor do we talk about servers. We talk now about applications and how applications impact the business and end users."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"It is very easy to install and configure. It has got excellent diagnostics. If you really need to see how the box is performing, the console gives you a lot of information. You can set thresholds as well as alerts based on the thresholds, which is a very powerful functionality. They are very proactive. They know how to monitor and manage the systems. They see a problem, and they are all over it before us. They see the problem before we see it, which is very good."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The solution is very user-friendly in terms of maintenance and configuration. It's also possible to connect the solution to other storage management solutions."
"This is one of the most stable, high-end solutions in this area."
"Data optimization, compression, and deduplication are the most important features for us."
"The technical support is great."
"It is robust. It doesn't need too much troubleshooting. It is a good device."
"The performance is very good."
"It is very flexible, and it is very useful when you want to virtualize different storage from different vendors."
"The valuable features for data management include deduplication and compression without performance impact, and the ability to virtualize old storage, making migration seamless."
"I like most of the features. Its speed, performance, and availability are valuable. We are implementing the data reduction technology the most."
"IBM FlashSystem has been stable in our operations."
"This solution is very stable."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is compression."
"The FlashSystem 900 consistently delivers performance below 1ms for read/write. This performance is essential for an effective SVC stretch-cluster configuration across two datacenters, and presenting active-active storage to the customer."
"The ability to create LUNs and modify them are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Installing FlashSystem is very easy. It takes less than half an hour, and I can handle it all myself."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"Our use cases require more multi-tenant capabilities and additional VLAN interfaces for separating different customers. We currently use it to provide storage, sometimes shared storage, to different customers, but it is less flexible in comparison to a dedicated solution."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"The software layer has to improve."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"At the moment, I don't see any room for improvement in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series because my experience with the product is very good. The software is okay and you can manage the storage well. What I'd like to see in the next release of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is for it to be a real NAS solution because right now, you need to use a Hitachi converter called HNAS which makes the process a little bit more expensive. In my opinion, Hitachi should look into the possibility of unifying the HNAS into full storage, meaning that the HNAS should be integrated into the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series."
"I would like the fan noise to be automatically adjusted based on the drive's current workload."
"The solution is stable. However, there have been some software crashes where we had to restart the system. They could improve the hardware to prevent this type of issue."
"The initial setup was difficult, as we don't have access to assistance. We had some issues around configuration. We needed to know things like what kind of rate is the best, or what kind of replication is ideal. We had to seek out answers online to get the information we needed."
"The solution is priced higher than its competitors."
"I would like to see Hitachi improve their management software. It's been three years since they introduced Ops Center, their management product, and it still hasn't reached at least 50 percent of the capability we require. We are using legacy software because the product Hitachi offers does not stack up in functionality."
"The Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform faces challenges when it comes to features like deduplication and compression. Enabling these features can lead to processor overload, resulting in performance degradation, especially under high loads."
"Its usability can be improved. It can have more management features. Its management tools lack features."
"A big area for improvement is that the data reduction pool feature is not recommended for use in a production environment because it has stability and performance issues."
"They can include Amazon file system S3 protocol in the upcoming releases. It is a cloud file system. IBM FlashSystem doesn't have this feature in the box for high-end or mid-range. We have got requests for this from customers because we need to use S3 for EDI application storage. At the beginning of every year, IBM releases firmware. When I find any bugs in the firmware during the year, I am unable to find any information from IBM regarding the bug. I need to open a ticket, and the IBM engineering team makes a patch only for me. This patch is not public. By creating a customized patch for a client, they don't really solve the issue for everyone. If multiple users have the same bug, IBM should upload the patch on the official website so that we can download it. IBM FlashSystem has a monitoring tool in the box, but it is not advanced. I need a more advanced tool for more advanced equations and monitoring. All top three storage vendors, that is, EMC, IBM, and Pure Storage, don't have a powerful monitoring tool. To monitor our box to show the statistics for I/Os and latency, I need to pay for extra software. The built-in monitoring storage is not mature enough to handle all requests and generate all reports that I need. They can include the functionality to stretch a cluster natively without using any additional boxes. In addition, there are some features that EMC has integrated with the box. These features are not available in IBM FlashSystem."
"The price is very costly."
"The solution is not easy to implement. It takes a lot of time to study the product and it's a little complicated in general."
"The deduplication and compression ratio is not very good. It's not reaching a very high ratio."
"The data reduction pool feature sucks and is not recommended for use with heavy workloads."
"Additional licenses might be added for the fundamental licenses, such as those for copying and flash copies."
"The interface of this solution could be improved."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 5th in NAS with 48 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "Leverages a 3DC architecture with VSP for disaster recovery, offering a 100% data availability guarantee". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and Pure Storage FlashArray, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Huawei OceanStor Dorado. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NAS reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
