We performed a comparison between HPE 3PAR StoreServ and IBM XIV based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."After being properly configured, it has been a very stable product."
"HPE 3PAR has all the common storage features like cell provisioning and deduplication. Usually the solution is chosen by the customer as they have a preference, or the setup is already in their environment."
"This system has been (by far) the easiest to use, manage, and expand."
"The biggest benefit is the fact that it's pretty much bulletproof; we never have any issues with them."
"Its snapshot capability is the most valuable feature, because replicate our databases from production to nonproduction for development. This allows us to do it very quickly."
"The solution is quite stable and scalable."
"Their support is the most valuable. The support that we are getting from HP Turkey is very good. This product is better than some of the other products in terms of reliability. It is very reliable."
"The initial setup was very straightforward."
"IBM XIV's most valuable features are NVME, especially when it comes to de-duplication, compression, and responsiveness."
"Hands down, this is the easiest storage platform on the market to manage."
"As it spreads, a chuck of 1MB across the board means using all available spindles on the backend."
"The performance and robustness of the systems are very good."
"Installation is amazingly easy."
"Very easy to produce reporting data (Snaps). Very easy and fast for provisioning devices and Remote mirroring."
"Would like to see some management functions through a web interface."
"There are issues formulating the upgraded disk."
"I would like to be able to deploy and manage 3PAR within OneView Global Dashboard so we do not have to use the interface for 3PAR."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"Setting up 3PAR is somewhat complicated, and it took about a week."
"There is a slight difference between what we expected and what was delivered."
"3PAR needs to keep on increasing its capacity."
"Although we experienced malfunctions where a virus was running and it failed."
"This product was not a good fit for our organization as we have a ton of latency sensitive applications and XIV was not able to keep up with IO + latency demand."
"Until the drive is replaced, the pool_resizing is locked."
"The change form synchronous mirroring to asynchronous (and vice versa) without reconfiguration from scratch would be helpful."
"I would rather have a web GUI served directly from the unit, and a CLI accessible directly through SSH."
"IBM XIV's scalability is adequate for our requirements, but because it's modular, you can't scale to larger requirements."
"I encountered stability (performance) issues during enclosure or disk rebuild. Also some power supply issues due to malfunctions of circuits. Sometimes "internal" Snap sessions hang and consume pool capacity."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 3rd in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 299 reviews while IBM XIV is ranked 10th in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 6 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while IBM XIV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of HPE 3PAR StoreServ writes "The product's technical support is outstanding as I can reach someone right away". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM XIV writes "Using it behind the SAN volume controller, latency is predictable and it is reliable". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and Dell PowerStore, whereas IBM XIV is most compared with IBM FlashSystem. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. IBM XIV report.
See our list of best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors.
We monitor all Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) 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.