We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp FAS Series 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."FlashArray has some fresh efficiency features. I've never seen a storage solution with a compression rating this high before. It's at least 4-to-1 on Oracle databases. It's the best flash storage for Oracle."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly."
"The latency is good."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"We're able to get higher-density workloads on the same infrastructure, and we have a smaller physical footprint. The performance is excellent – during our test the bottlenecks are never on the X array, it just keeps picking up the pace to match what you need. The real-time visibility is a differentiator in my opinion."
"IBM FlashSystem has been stable in our operations."
"The Flash core models offer amazing performance."
"IBM FlashSystem is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is SCM (Storage Class Memory), which has the lowest latency value in the storage industry."
"The all-flash storage has tier replication capabilities."
"The most valuable features are deduplication and compression, which together, enable you to have more space."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is compression."
"The performance monitoring feature is useful as it can report in 15 minute intervals by hour, day, week, month, or by a custom date range."
"It is good to have a unified storage where you can have block and file level protocols."
"A reliable and easily managed storage system is a key performance factor. The system also has more features than we require."
"It's an easy product to use that is stable and has good performance."
"Has rock solid reliability and is easy to use."
"The migration of the volume on the cluster is very useful and easy to use."
"Flexible and reliable storage solution with multiple features such as cloning, replication, and deduplication. Data migration can be done without any performance implications on the production systems."
"The SnapMirror is a good tool because, as long as you're going NetApp to NetApp, it's ultimately the fastest way to move data. We replicate everything to another site for disaster recovery."
"You can use different protocols at the same time. Monitoring is also very easy in NetApp FAS Series. There is a free tool for monitoring."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"The software layer has to improve."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"It is on the expensive side."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"The initial setup is complex."
"With regards to the IBM V7000 storage system, where we have multiple tiers of storage, a heat map would show I/O distribution across the tiers of storage."
"The data reduction pool feature sucks and is not recommended for use with heavy workloads."
"The array level RAID does not seem available."
"One area for improvement is in the GUI, where host clusters are not properly dealt with. With Hypervisor host clusters, all hosts must see the same volumes in the same order. Using the concept of a “host-group” has been around (even with IBM) for many years, so why not with the V7000?"
"The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
"Cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive."
"The NetApp FAS Series is not as high-performing and is not as fast. Its speed needs improvement, but this could only be done if it's an all-flash solution."
"The product should improve its user experience."
"Interfacing with the cloud environment could be better. I want to be able to move some cloud volume and integrate it seamlessly with my home on-premise storage. Sometimes I have issues with port permissions. NetApp probably needs to improve more on the integration side from on-premise to the cloud."
"The AutoSupport could be improved to be more proactive in certain cases."
"The solution's configuration is not flexible."
"The adoption of flash by NetApp has also been lagging behind the trendsetters, like TMS, Nimble, and others."
"They should add new features to the product."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 98 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and HPE StorageWorks MSA, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and HPE StoreEasy. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp FAS Series 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.
