The primary use case for AFF is for use in our production environment. Within our production environment, we have a number of different data stores that AFF serves. We use a number of protocols from NFS to CIFS, as well from the file system protocols, and in the block level we use iSCSI.

We are a fully on-prem business as far as data positioning data sets. 

We don't have real-time applications that we run in-house, being a law firm. The most important thing is the availability of our environments and applications that we serve to our client base. We don't have real-time applications that we could be measured in real tangible form that would make a huge difference for us. Nevertheless, the way it goes: the faster, the better; the more powerful, the better; and the more resources you can get from it, the better.

We like the fact that we also use it and therefore can tell our clients about it from an actual user perspective, not just a sales perspective. 

No one has a price-to-earnings ratio that NetApp has, everyone's is inflated. NetApp's is below market, NetApp pays a two and a half percent dividend, NetApp stock has doubled in the past 12 months. NetApp's largest customer is probably the federal government, which uses more than 50% of NetApp, from my understanding, if you subtract cloud, although I'm not privy to understand how much cloud the federal government uses that is actually NetApp under the covers.

The fact of the matter is, if you need the top-selling, performing, file serving appliance to deliver your files to your end-users, NetApp pretty much invented the technology. While no one really can take credit for serving files, NetApp has been doing it for more than 25 years. They do it better than anyone. They have utilities around that. They can do three things that their competition can do with multiple different solutions. I'm sure there are some obscure things that they do in vertical markets that their competition does better, however, I'm not going to comment on radiology or genetics or things of that. They do a lot of things, yet, not like a Swiss army knife. They do a lot of things and are the best of breed of products put together.

Other manufacturers claim simplicity. In fact, frankly, they do have an advantage in that regard, however, they don't have the functionality. If you were to compare one of those products to NetApp, head to head from a feature perspective, NetApp would wind up in the top 10.

I primarily use the solution for asically all my main data for all my ESXi hosts.

NetApp is a good choice because it's not only for a normal application, but it can also integrate with Nvidia for AI solutions.

The scalability is great and super easy. We are able to just connect, go through the UI, and select to expand the cluster. It is super easy even if you want to scale it out by having a Mirror setup, not a cluster, or pairing them together. By being able to do this with just a couple of clicks of a mouse button, it is superb.

We have thousands of customers, but there is not much to do for daily operations because it just runs. We have alerts setup in it, but we seldom have to do anything.

For ONTAP, in general, the deduplication ratio and Snapshot limitation are areas that need improvement. There is a global limitation on the number of Snapshots or clones that can be spun off of a particular Snapshot. If those limitations are increased, it might be helpful.

With regard to Fibre Channel and iSCSI, the block protocol is still not up to the mark. NetApp has not been a leader in file and block services.

SnapCenter is still not mature enough and has a grid at scale. It is still not up to the mark and is not delivering as promised when we initially invested in StorageGRID.

In terms of Oracle workloads, NFS workloads specific to databases, Snapshots, data production strategies, and SnapMirror, significant room for improvement is needed from NetApp.

Compatibility with multiple vendors has been a pain and continues to be so.

We are using AFF for a few clients. It's a specific type of data we use for these arrays, not like a block kind of thing or regular data. A few clients have particular requirements about where we put all the data. We are primarily using FAS, and we have around four or five AFF boxes. We don't deal with AFF regularly. 

We're not currently using NetApp Cloud Backup, but we're planning on implementing it. I'm not sure because my architect is the one who manages the end-to-end services for NetApp. He makes all the decisions on the NetApp side whether we use AFF or FAS. AFF is a unified storage box, so we route certain data to AFF. 

The main purpose of the AFF is to work with applications that require high-intensity I/O operations. For example, we run some open-source DBs, as well as Oracle, that require high-intensity I/O. We also have a high-performance computing setup.

We have two locations. In the first location, we have an AFF cluster. In the second location, we have an AFF cluster that works in combination with ASAs.

Our environment is primarily made up of open-source applications. 

We always get what we need from their technical support, but what I find annoying is that you always have to go through all the various levels of support. That has definitely improved, but you always have to go through the front end, explaining what your environment looks like and what the impact of the issue is. But that's the only complaint I have about the support.

It would help if they had a customer profile and could look it up and. When I create a case, I try to put in as much information as I can, but it's not always read. I get a standard email back from NetApp that says, "What does your environment look like?" even when I have put all of the information in the case, upfront.

We are mostly using it for ESX, i.e., a mix of both CIFS and NFS shares, and NAS purposes. 

We have a team of four core NetApp trained people from the storage team who are managing NetApp. Two of them are in the learning stage, and I am one of them. 

For our customers, the main benefit is the performance they get with NetApp AFF. We have a lot of feedback from customers about how their applications work faster and that they are very happy with it.

We deploy it a lot for VMware environments and, with VMware, we have nearly all the client's applications. We can have 500 or 1,000 virtual machines on the AFF. Sometimes they tell us that a compute application that, with earlier generations of storage solutions, took hours or days, takes much less time with AFF. For some customers, it takes three or four or five times less, with the new AFF.

Using NetApp AFF has also helped to reduce support issues. It's very stable and we don't have a lot of issues with it. I can talk a lot about this aspect because sometimes we provide support for NetApp. We have certification for level-one and level-two NetApp support. We only escalate the L3 support to NetApp. It's a very good technology with very few bugs.

In addition, the ONTAP data management software has simplified our clients' operations. NetApp is simple to manage. You can grow and reduce the capacity, and you can create a backup copy through replication with SnapMirror and SnapVault. There are a lot of features in NetApp and they are simple to implement.

Because I worked with our reseller, Indocurrent, we had someone who had a substantial amount of experience with NetApp. I wasn't as hands-on in terms of deploying it, but I was there with him as he deployed it. I watched him, observed him, and learned from him. Learning from that person was actually helpful. 

It was very straightforward working with the reseller. They have always been responsive to us. I have nothing but good things to say about our reseller/integrator. I would recommend Indocurrent as a reseller.

Before, retrieving data or searching for something on the application would take some time. But since we migrated to NetApp, retrieving of the data happens quickly. It's fast.

In addition, we can easily manage the volumes on the NetApp application. We are getting very good, high performance and it has simplified our data management jobs, such as creating volumes. If our hard drive fails, we can reinitialize the process, and do many other things. It's very helpful.

NetApp has helped to reduce support issues due to performance or troubleshooting as we do not have such issues. We have not faced any performance issues since installing this device.

In addition, the ONTAP data management software has simplified our operations. We use it for high-availability of our file system. If any hard drive goes down, it will automatically be recovered.

We use NetApp AFF to support cloud integration and SAP Oracle. It has made the Oracle WebLogic site very fast and we can deploy the machines very easily. We can assign storage to the server visually, and use it to manage the storage.

The deduplication is the most valuable feature. When you have multiple systems with almost the same data, the deduplication helps save on capacity. It is why the box can be overprovisioned. This is very useful in the case where immediate space is required for an application or teams. It also provides good efficiency when provisioning deduplication compression. These efficiencies are very useful compared to other products.

AFF has helped simplify data management with unified data infrastructure (UDI) across SAN and NAS environments. This is very important. Nowadays, UDI is gaining market share for NetApp. 

Its virtualization knowledge is very useful. Also, the Active IQ technology of NetApp is very useful, which uses AI to give suggestions to customers.

The ONTAP data management software has simplified our clients' operations to an extent. The auto support feature gives unique notifications, which simplifies the management. Plus, there have been enhancements in the GUI compared to previous versions, which has simplified things. 

We use synchronous replication with SnapMirror. We can failover and failback very easily. We can failover the site to another, which is good.

I want to call it a "Ronco." You Set it and forget it. We paid a premium for the AFF units but we never have to worry about them. They just work.

We use them for file services, email, as LUNs for servers, Exchange, Oracle, and SQL.

The main service of those devices is for use at our offshore platforms and that's where they'll be heading. We have a lot of data offshore, seismic data, and it needs to be stored in a reliable system. The main use case is to store the core business data from the platform at our offshore site, so that it is safe.

We primarily use the solution for databases, including Oracle, SQL, PostgreSQL, and VMware. 

We're moving some data warehouses over as well as our main financial system.

The improvement I would like to see is not just about NetApp. Rather, it's about improving the hardware itself in terms of its lifecycle. How long is it going to stay as responsive, for example. Their rates have improved; however, there is still room to improve.

I'd like to see them continue with scalability and have the ability to scale more. Hopefully, it gets more compact than it actually is for the scale that we're looking for. 

When it comes to the cloud, they might need to improve in terms of making it clear why someone would use a NetApp solution over cloud-made storage. That part either needs to have improved technology or improved visibility to the customer. Why should I use that instead of something that seems to be less expensive? They need to explain that more than simply saying ROI is good and the TCO is good. People need a little bit more. It's not easy in this space for people to choose a product. When you go online, you want to have a simple way to choose.

We've used Dell EMC in the past, and we use Pure now. 

Pure is easier to manage just from an interface perspective, however, I would say the performance of both is close to equal. We chose AFF primarily for the level of performance. That said, the team that works for me has more experience with Pure. The issue we have is that the footprint is way smaller.

We share data between systems as well as sharing data between our off-brand mainframe.

We can provide all the SLA performance-wise and high availability to the business. We are trying to maintain compliance with all business SLAs.

We've had to upgrade our available storage three times, and it was all seamless. There is a cost every time, but there hasn't been an outage. It's been quick and seamless, and we haven't had any issues with scalability.

We have 8,000 undergraduate students and 2,000 graduate students, and we facilitate another 5,000 university staff. We run all of our campus-wide phone systems and CIFS on it, along with our local VMware environment. We have about 10,000 to 15,000 people relying on NetApp AFF every day.

We thought about using Dell, however, when it came to cost-effectiveness, we stayed with NetApp. I like the way NetApp is coded and its maintenance configuration. I know how to set up a NetApp; I prefer that over Dell.

Dell EMC XtremIO is scalable and it is easy to do. However, we cannot have more than four bricks.

We have approximately 10 people in the storage team who use the solution and 5,000 use the services in my organization. 

The solution is used on a daily basis. The media profiles are launched for each user and it communicates to the Dell EMC XtremIO daily.

The primary use case for XtremIO is for managing business applications, either critical or non-critical. It's mainly used in the banking and finance sectors, but it can be used for other sectors as well. XtremIO is an on-premises solution. 

Scalability has an upper limit, so it's difficult to scale to a certain extent, or to an enterprise, level, but it simply runs out. There is a limit to how far you can go.

We have 20,000 users with varied workloads from SAP, SharePoint, and Exchange.

We intend to replace it with something else or to upgrade it as it comes to its end of life.

Dell XtremIO provides great performance. The IOPS is less than one millisecond. Because of this, many telecom companies are working with this solution. They are dependent on XtremIO as their main storage source on their side.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The product is easy to manage and deploy. It's got full API functionality and the performance is pretty steady. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

Tintri has a feature called Tintri Global Center, which helps to monitor and control our infrastructure with a single click. This works fine if you want to look at existing data, however, if you want to monitor dynamically with a granularity of seconds that it requires a connection back to Tintri central, which is an extra step and not so convenient to use. Also, we have noticed that while Tintri has improved our infrastructure performance by 30%, the performance drops significantly if we exceed SSD capacity.

Following additional features, we would like to see in the new release:

1. The fixing of the performance issue when we exceed SSD capacity.

2. Documentation support in major languages besides English (as we have teams spread out across multiple countries).

3. Having a one-click GUI to create snapshots of the storage.

4. Detailed reporting is missing in the current version. We would like to see this feature added in a new release.

We primarily use Tintri VMstore solution for our VM database storage needs. Previously we used IBM flash storage services. However, it had significant drawbacks. So, we switched to Tintri VMstore solution, and it met all our storage needs and more. 

The extra layer of security it provides is also very valuable for our organization. We use 24 VMs in our environment currently, and our customer database contains sensitive information. With the help of Tintri VMstore solution, we are also on the right path for future expansions.

It's our main enterprise storage for our in-house cloud.

Previously, we managed individual servers as hosts with virtual machines running inside. We consolidated about seven individual hosts into one VMstore joined to a Dell blade array that we purchased at the same time. That saves a massive amount of time on ongoing maintenance management. VMstore probably reduces administration time by about 15 to 20 percent. It also saves significant power costs because we've turned off about nine servers in the last seven years. 

What formerly may have taken up a terabyte or two on a server only requires half that on the VMstore. It has increased efficiency while saving time and power costs. It's easier to use and a huge step up in reliability. Overall, it's a high-speed storage solution, which was a significant upgrade.

VMstore has made our company more profitable. We've increased our retail sales and margins while decreasing the time spent managing the solution. We sold this as a significant upgrade to a premium service when moving customers to this new array. Depending on the customer, we increased our retail charges for these services by between 10 and 15 percent. Without fail, every customer paid for it, and they were pleased with the service. 

Tintri has changed the way that you do NFS for VMs, which is a big deal. Usually, NFS for VMs is very chatty and causes you a lot of problems. Tintri rewrote the NFS for virtuality that allows each basic VM to get its own line at the checkout stand. What this does is that it gives much more response. I don't have problems with performance. I can virtualize pretty much anything without any slowdown or any issues. Plus, I'm easily able to replicate or clone hundreds of VMs up from one in an instance. With automation tied with our Ansible, Tintri is one of the most powerful tools in our toolbox.

It frees up my guys to innovate. They're not dealing with slow storage calls. They're not dealing with performance calls. Storage used to be a big issue where one person was maintaining it all the time. Not having to maintain that storage or groom or manicure that storage gives them the freedom to do other things. Tintri is like its own employee because it allows you to do other things besides storage. It has helped very much to reduce administrative time.

In terms of visibility, it gives me enough ammo so that when all the finger-pointing starts, I can always point to the network and say, "Hey, it's you."

We're constantly developing, iterating, and doing new VMs. So, the ability to move fast and the ability to have high-speed storage is valuable. In the case of something like Atlassian where you work with Jira and you're rolling out your own updates or something like that, you might need to iterate a 500-gig server six times to find all the issues. Even Atlassian will tell you that the first time you upgrade their stuff, it doesn't usually work, so get ready to try it again in your lab. When you are working in a lab environment or need to do things like that, the abilities that the backend of Tintri has are just amazing. They allow you to utilize and take advantage of that. I can spin up five 500-gig VMs without taking a hit to my data store, my performance, or my total overall storage. That's because of the way Tintri does the dedup and the blocks. It has already got all these blocks until the delta gets changed. Even though you've got five 500-gig VMs, which should be 2,500 gigs or 2.5 terabytes, it's not seeing it as that because it has got to compact it and basically zip, but they're all running until the delta gets far enough apart. That allows me to do things I wasn't able to do on my NetApp. It was like you can only have one other copy, and that's it because it's going to be a one-to-one clone. 

It enables replication, snapshots, and setting QoS at the virtual machine level, which is super important. We don't use quality of service because the service is so good. Once in seven years, I might have used that. It's already running and performing. So, the QoS runs on its own. It's great.

I have not had any major problems with it except that one of the controllers failed one time. But that didn't hinder performance because there were two of them.

A feature like replication for disaster recovery would be nice.

If I compare it to SAN Symphony, for instance, it's much faster, much reliable level. 

The maintenance is very good. The support is very, very good. If you do any maintenance on it you have the support, and it's nice to know they are there to assist.

It's a very good product. It's very easy to manage everything.

With a snapshot, you can schedule it and you can remove it afterward. You can do a kind of production cope. That's very, very good now, and it's performing very well. The storage is amazing. It's so fast.

The total reduction you can expect is excellent. You buy the bundle storage and they give you a ratio of what you can achieve within it.

The mobile app is very helpful. I have an application on my smartphone. I view the latency in real-time on my app. You can see everything on your smartphone. You can also set up alerts on it, and things like this. I don't think you can do this on Dell storage. 

The solution is stable. It's superb. We've done upgrades in which multiple controllers were involved and, while changing from one model of the array to another, a single controller was removed. It is swapped out and a new one introduced. Once it's stable they proceed to the next one. We have never experienced an outage in any of the three companies in which I've employed the solution. Even when the controller went down, the arrays remained up.

The solution itself is pretty solid. Perhaps the time available for selecting upgrades or for scheduling things could be improved. On a couple of occasions, the waiting time for an upgrade has been pretty substantial. 

In the next release, I would like for them to support file systems on the lower-end models, like the X-10 or X-20. 

The integration and migration features have been really good.

We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray.

It has an Evergreen model and always maintains the controllers, so the controllers never let you down.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves with the supervision of the integrator.

We have a team that does the maintenance and operations of the solution.

The administration is very easy and quite minimal.

The performance is very good.

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

Technical support is good.

I'm a pre-sales architect. I architect, and I sell them as a partner with Pure Storage on the VAR side. Our customers use it for storage, mainly block-based storage and virtualization storage. Some solutions have both block and file storage, and some solutions only have file storage from Pure. 

There is definitely room for improvement.

Overall, the solution is pretty good, although it does have certain gaps. There are many features which need to be added, particularly on the replication side. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. The deployment took a couple of hours.

We did a PoC with the product and checked to make sure that it worked in our environment.

We have a group of about 6 to 10 people managing the system.

We've had different types of storage, and three things of this solution are valuable. The first one is its outstanding performance. The second one is its stability. In the about three years that we've had it, we've had component failures, but we never had a service interruption or any data loss. The third one, which is really critical, is that it is super easy to use in terms of provisioning, storage, and managing the arrays. I'm able to maintain a multi-site environment with a couple of dozen arrays with a single mid-level storage admin.

We do a lot of data replication as well, and the replication features are all easy to set up. The networking controls for setting up interfaces and sub-interfaces are also easy to manage.

The setup was extremely simple. 

The solution offers amazing performance. The speed and reliability of their flash arrays are great. In terms of flash storage, they're on it. The performance is there.

Their evergreen solution is probably the most needed in any industry. Especially today in unprecedented times and supply chain issues, their evergreen solution is amazing. 

Whenever we come out with a new feature for our system, we just swap out the storage controller. We don't change anything on our desk and we get the new features. That evergreen approach in your third year costs you nothing. 

It's a great company, great solution. They're dominating in their space for a good reason.

Even their management, their interface, is just the best in the industry. 

The solution can scale.

I have not contacted technical support.

My main point of contact has been the reseller.

FlashArray has many valuable features. It's very user-friendly and it has high availability, so there is comparatively less downtime. During maintenance, there is no shutdown procedure, so you can directly power off the Array and manage the shutdown process without any data loss, which is a unique feature. Managing replication and data migration is also very easy. 

FlashArray is our main repository for all our VMware.

It's just very easy for general block storage. Generally, the ease of use is what customers comment on. It's very user-friendly.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

Scalability is possible. You can expand the solution.

The stability and reliability are great.

Technical support has been helpful in general. 

Pure Storage FlashArray is our main SAN solution. It's for SAN for service for data storage.

The low latency and the performance, in general, are very good.

The compression and deduplication features help to make the best use of the capacity.

Replication and active-active features are available.

One of the requirements from our developers and test and development team is that from time to time, they want to clone the production environment. We are able to accomplish this within seconds, using a script. This is one of the best parts that I have seen. This feature is not available with other storage solutions.

The solution is simple to implement. It's a new kind of storage, it is very easy to use. It is similar to NetApp, it is straightforward.

Deploying FlashArray is fast and straightforward. We can deploy the infrastructure in half an hour, but installing all the other things takes about two hours to provide the disk to the host. We don't need any help. We integrate the infrastructure with other vendors like Cisco, Veeam, Microsoft Hyper-V, etc., and it works fine. We only need one engineer to deploy FlashArray, but we have three Pure-certified engineers on our team.

Technical support needs improvement.

With respect to them being able to respond, they're more marketing people, less technical. Some of these technical SMEs who I've worked with on Pure Storage, they're really good. However, overall, some accounts still have that thing in their mind that the support isn't as great as some of the bigger companies like Dell or HPE.

That said, that's not the experience for me.

The availability and ease of use are the big features. 

This solution helped our organization a lot to increase the performance of reading and writing in the storage itself.

Our business is in the utility functionality where we are creating and maintaining IT service for our utility sector. We are an electricity and water company where we are consuming a large number of bandwidth regarding the bill cyclings, read and write from the meters in the fields. All of this data is stored in the same storage. Pure Storage FlashArray has helped us to improve the reporting and the billing cycle.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Pure Storage FlashArray has helped our organization because it effectively (price/performance) stores databases and we do not need an every day/detailed  administration.

We also use HPE Nimble. This solution scales much better. That said, it is a bit more complex to implement when you compare it to Nimble. 

There are two different classes in our design. We put more critical applications on Pure due to its stability and resilience. Less important or less critical applications or servers are on Nimble. However, the capacity of Nimble is far larger than Pure Storage.

The product cheaper compared to other solutions concerning the technology that they are using. They have excellent rates of deduplication and compression. To offer 20 terabytes of storage, we just need maybe five terabytes of physical hardware. That's great. At the time, there was a notable difference as it was the only vendor with those numbers in terms of deduplication and compression in real-time.

Today other vendor software offers something similar, however, when it was just Pure, it was the best thing. I want to check again, however, usually, we use the Gartner charts to make decisions and start looking for different vendors and maybe the vendors we want to test. At the time, Pure was the leader in every aspect in terms of flash arrays and deduplication and all of that.

The only feature the solution lacks is self-backup. If you're working with different processors, you need to install different software tools to back up. But if it were directly available, it would make things very easy. 

Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level. Those issues are related to replication. They need to resolve those issues, which I have already highlighted to the Pure team. Additionally, there are some issues in the active cluster that could improve.

Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography.

Pure Storage FlashArray is not difficult to maintain.

The initial setup is straightforward. Two engineers are usually tasked with deployment.

In the configuration, which we brought in or tested it in, it has a very limited config as far as the array goes. That said, it still did more than our anticipation. 

It's going to be a hard one to manage. They have most of what we were looking at, including some things that we're looking at down the road. The growth on this particular array is almost unlimited for most shops. I would say they still need more enhanced speed, however, that's always a thing with storage.

Nimble storage is our primary Production storage vendor.  We use this with VMware on a daily basis including a new AFA5000 all flash array for our DMS system.

Straightforward and very easy, as always.

When I'm competing against someone, I would like Nimble to be an active-active controller. As it is now, Nimble is an active-passive controller. If the customer is looking for an active-active controller, then we can't use Nimble and have to go with Primera. Nimble gives us a lot of good things, but without the active-active controller, it's pointless.

We use HPE Nimble for deduplication and to compress data.

We have a large number of customers that rely on high availability from this product.

I think the scalability of HPE Nimble Storage could be improved.

In Venezuela, we have to purchase the solution for two years and cannot obtain a secondary storage platform. So from my perspective, the scalability is not as easy as that of 3PAR StoreServ or HPE Primera.

I'm working with one of the distributors here in Indonesia, Helios Informatika Nusantara. Mainly I'm involved with managing the SMB company. 

I rate HPE Nimble Storage as a nine out of ten. 

The performance and reliability are excellent. Due to the fact that we are a provider, we need systems which just run and run and run the whole day and the whole night without issue. This product does just that. We are selling services, and therefore we need a system which works 24/7.

The initial setup is very easy.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is straightforward.

The installation is straightforward.

In general, the solution works great. We haven't had any issues with it.

It's very reliable. Even if one control fails, it automatically turns on the other controller and everything moves from one to the second instantaneously without any issues.

The product is quite robust.

HPE Nimble Storage is quick to release updates that fix bugs or problems and the failover has been good.

The first installation we did was at a mine in South America, Chile, in a place called Ike where the elevation was very high that spinning disks were failing, the meantime for failure was low. The main reason we put our first all-flash array was that it was solid-state which has no moving parts. This solution allowed our organization to operate in that location.

The solution is easy to scale, but there are some limitations. We would like to add more storage but there are certain limitations.

We have a small environment, and six people are using this solution in my organization on a daily basis.

We have two use cases for the solution. One use case is for our daily work. Another use case is our shared platform. We are a service provider and we have our shared platform to sell some power, some compute and storage to our customers.

The vendor has a lot of support available.

The initial setup is always complex, however, it is manageable. Of course, it could always be a bit easier in the future. 

The initial deployment is pretty fast and takes less than a week.

A company would typically need one or two engineers for deployment and maintenance tasks. 

HPE Nimble Storage is highly stable. We have not had any downtime due to failures in the three years we have used it. 

It's a fairly standard nimble storage array.

We use HPE Nimble Storage as our typical SAN for virtual environment storage and shared storage.

The most useful features are high availability and the storage snapshot backup functionality.

We are using it for our high availability cluster.

The initial setup was straightforward and took about two weeks to complete.

It’s an excellent solution. The failure rates are minimal.

It’s easy to set up.

It's a very easy solution. Whenever I have a question, I find they have already provided a solution for it. For example, I want to sort out backups so that I offload some data off the Nimble since I don't want online to be clogged. They'll tell you we've got storage which is where you write your backup, which one is a partner where you can back up this information, get Veeam to store the backup, and then you can configure and send it to the storage if I want to run high availability.

They have really thought through their solution. They've covered everything.

Even their support is great. We have a support contract, so when there's an escalation on the system, you even see an email from them telling you that you have this issue. They do respond quickly and help you resolve your daily from the log. They’ll say: “This is the issue. Do this.” It's so easy to work with.

It's very easy, very compatible, and user-friendly. 

You don't have to do anything. When you power up, it'll ask you a couple of questions. For example, what IP address is required, the name, and how many partitions or, if you don't do the partition, just go for the IP addresses. 

It has a power backup network card and everything.

You don't have to go directly to the storage to create anything. It's automatically from the VM or any other software. Whatever you are using, you just create storage over there or in space, and it automatically creates it in the Nimble.

It has SSD cache and it has a physical drive as well. It is fast. It'll automatically sense your data. Whatever data you are pulling frequently, it'll store in that cache instead of storing directly on the hard drive to pull or store that. It is a very good feature.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is scalable. 

It's stable. 

HPE 3PAR provides fast and reliable storage for our critical systems like the database (MSSQL and Oracle). It also improved the availability of the system and at the same time provides a Disaster Recovery solution by using the remote-copy feature.

The adaptive optimization is also a factor in maximizing the capability of the system.

The deployment and maintenance are done in-house.

We are always using the latest version because I upgrade every year.

The features which are most valuable are the availability of the system and the management.

I think the main thing of value to me is the intelligence around the solution and how data is taken care of on the storage side of things, with your LANs and your virtual volumes and how it sort of manages everything else.

We use HPE 3PAR StoreServ for data storage. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) had something in the contract because if you can compress data very well, you don't need that much capacity in your systems. If it was not possible to compress to a certain degree, they put some extra capacity in the systems. We bought that borrowed capacity but they separated the one-piece storage boxes added to our environment to get along with that bigger growth in capacity. Despite that, it is a wonderful system with an excellent graphical user interface. Still, new functions are being rolled out.

The initial setup was straightforward, it took approximately 45 minutes.

The initial setup is straightforward with the help of the technicians from the company.

The deployment was completed in one week.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We use the old disk and we can't make a VMO in HPE 3PAR without getting an upgrade. We activated a new disk but it failed, it's hard to manipulate and format it. The disk might be okay but when we put it in the storage array, it failed.

The main use for this solution is for storing large data in the backend. It is used in many companies, such as financial institutions. Unfortunately, it has come to the end of service life, companies are going to other solutions because there are cheaper products, it cost too much to maintain the 3PAR.

The initial setup is not overly difficult or complex. it's pretty simple and straightforward. 

The deployment is fast and within a day you can have everything up and running. 

We have engineers available that can assist with deployment and maintenance. 

HPE 3PAR StoreServ has improved our organization from its ease of use and high availability.

We have used HPE 3PAR Flash Storage in the past for all our IT data. For example, we have used it for claims, office management, business intelligence, business information. It can be used for a lot of purposes.

The GUI interface could be improved. I have been having trouble with one issue in particular. If you look at the DC and DR, if there is a communication break and the link went down—so the data is not replicating from DC to DR—there is no way to find out how much data is ready for transmission. Only the size of the data that needs to be transferred after the link comes up. If the firewall link is down, there is no way of seeing how much data is waiting to be transferred. This is a weak point of 3PAR. 

The installation is straightforward.

I work with customers all over demark, which consists of small to large companies. I normally make dual data centers with one HPE 3PAR StoreServ on each side. Our customers are mainly running with failover/failback mission-critical systems.

One of 3PAR's advantages is that it's easy to find a qualified technician. It's such a common device. We are using it in Turkey. France, Spain, and other locations.

The speed of the hard disk could be better. The performance is the main issue for us. The performance of the VMs is not comparable to desktop machines, for instance, and we might need another solution to improve the performance. Other than that, we don't have any issues. We already have a great part of storage with SSDs, and the performance is not as good as I expected. 

It's very similar to most of the other arrays, which are available there. 

The auto-tiering is something that we like. The provisioning is quite good. 

Very recently, we are able to do a lot of data center automation by being able to script some of the 3PAR actions for our private cloud. That's the other important aspect of using 3PAR.

The initial setup is simple.

The product is quite expensive. The costs involved are high.

We would like the product to make it more of a straightforward procedure when we need to configure storage. There were quite a lot of options and parameters that we don't have knowledge of. We used some external company to make the configuration for us, for the 3PAR storage.

The StorServ is the main storage for our infrastructure. Our ERP system runs on it, as well as 15 other servers including Active Directory, synchronization servers, and more.

HPE is not present in Algeria. They manage support through the delivery partner that actually can provide some assistance. Right now, we have spare part problem. It's not present. We have to wait, maybe, a couple of weeks or more than one month to have a replacement get shipped in and we're usually reaching out about that. It is a big issue for the customer if we lose one server, or the blade is down. It means the service can be down for one month, and it's not a good idea to share this information with customers. 

Before 2015, HPE had some sort of setup with DHL or FedEx. It was very good. On top of that, they had an HPE engineer to manage the support. However, since then, they left. They closed the office and they manage everything now indirectly in the country, via other countries. If we try to measure the performance of HPE outside our country, it's very good, however, here, we have had a bad experience with them and so have our customers as well as local customers.

I have worked with this equipment for the last two years. When I worked before in Hitachi Data Systems, I worked for a data architect and designed complete solutions, so I have a lot of interaction with the clients.  I handle the solutions, the capacity of the disk, configuration, initial set up, definitions of the DP pools, assigning the volumes, creating the entire SAN, etc. Also, I manage the SAN switches. I worked for Pearson, Sonic, Mobiistar, Macromer, Mynorte, and Santander. Every time, I created the whole environment— all open and the mainframe in development. For example, at Ponavid, I created the whole solution, assigned the space, performed all the troubleshooting, as well as supported all the hardware and the performance.

Hitachi VSP scales pretty well, but it generally depends on storage costs. The high-end arrays have huge scalability limits. Generally, we are limited mainly by the array controllers' performance, not the array's capacity limits. 

Our environment is massive. We have approximately 15,000 users for virtual desktop solutions, about 16,000 email users, and approximately 6,000 to 7,000 servers running on VMware platforms. We also have a few hundred logical partitions on IBM Power servers.

The installation and initial setup are not straightforward. We had to do a lot of configuration and required assistance from the vendor to complete it. In particular, there were certain things that there was some confusion about.

The location and the sizing were also things that we had to plan for internally. 

It is very stable. We have had just one failure on a disk, but due to the protection, we didn't lose any data.

The deduplication is useful for us because we don't have that much money for our lab infrastructure. Deduplication means we have more storage available. And the IOPS are really fast.

Recently, we deployed SS9100. At the core level that is deployed on that storage, it is not stable. We had an incident not too long ago. Both controllers rebooted simultaneously, within 15 seconds. There was some threshold value defined in the core level, and the system exceeded that threshold value. 

We logged the case to IBM. IBM did internal checks, which we deployed. The permanent fix will be available in the first quarter of 2021. It seems to be an issue on IBM's side. Obviously, we were surprised by how both controllers rebooted. We faced downtime on our applications and on our services. 

The issue which we had recently faced relates to the core level. It should be first tested at IBM labs and then introduced for general release.

IBM should improve its data reduction development.

The solution is primarily a file infrastructure. It contains all the virtual machines for our company.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is well documented.

The installation is straightforward. The solution is delivered with an operating system, which can be updated in about half an hour. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

We do the implementation and maintenance of the solution using our in-house team.

The initial setup was straightforward with a smooth installation.

The general use cases depend on the size of a company. I work with the commercial sector, the FlashSystem 5000 and its different models. It suits the small to medium, or SME, companies. The FlashSystem 9200 goes mainly to big enterprises, like banking or governmental sectors. The 7200 plays sometimes in SME and sometimes in bigger enterprises. 

The availability of the product is great.

I appreciate how well it can scale. 

The solution is stable. The performance is quite good.

It's very easy to manage. They make it very, very easy to add notes.

This product will improve your performance and it has helped us with that.

Also, in prior systems where we had mechanical drives, there would have been at least a couple of drive failures. With this solution, no drive failures have been experienced so far.

Compare to our previous system, space utilization has definitely been reduced. Our old system used two racks, whereas this solution sits in a single rack and initially took up 2Us. Post-upgrade, it is 8Us but even so, compared to what we had, it is a considerable energy saving. Also, when we upgraded, it helped us to mitigate a lot of our legacy issues present with the old hardware.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy to install.

It takes very little time to deploy. The initial implementation will take two days. The data will then be moved by wifi over a three-week period due to the implementation study.

The installation is being managed by a team of two engineers.

The stability of the product is very valuable. I also like the new system they use that improves the availability of storage.

My main use of this solution is for backup.

This solution is our main production storage system. It is deployed in a few banks in Ukraine, where it is used to store the core system data.

I would advise users of this solution to ensure they have the correct licensing and continue to maintain the product while using it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We used the solution exclusively for block storage. Over time, it added compression features and now even NVMe. 

It's perfectly suited for an on-premise solution or for providing a base for cloud solutions, VMware workloads, IBM i-series, IBM AIX, IBM Power, Linux, and Windows compute. In other words, the complete server stack. It is something others actually can't offer. All of this can be operated from within the same solution. 

It definitely has a strong plus in environments where you actually have such different server solutions in place.

IBM FlashSystem has high availability.

Our entire company uses the solution for block storage. The solution is easily administered and maintained by four technicians. 

IBM FlashSystem is one hundred percent stable. My customers didn't encounter any failures, so it's good.

The data is the main factor. The security encryption of the data with storage has been the biggest improvement to our organization.

We like how straightforward the IBM system is and the technical team's support.

We switched to using IBM because we wanted an AI based solution. 

The basic setup can be challenging when it comes to certain IP addresses and the configuration of the IP. You have to go in to different menus to makes changes and ensure it is stable.

Ina future release, we would like to have a better way to install and to configure FlashSystem.

I have been dealing with IBM FlashSystem since it has become available.

I am a reseller. We sell 5,025,5,100, and 5,200, versions.

The initial setup is straightforward but does have some complexity in the middle. 

The initial setup was straightforward and took three days. I rate it an eight out of ten.

It would be good to have historical graphs showing data for a month. Right now, only live graphs are available.

Space reclamation also needs to be improved.

If you want to expand, you cannot expand the disc enclosure. You have to buy a total individual node. Sometimes, this is difficult because we are just looking for capacity and not a node.

I provide IBM FlashSystem to my customers and host it on the GBM private cloud, to give them the best services. I am working on a project to replace an HP Primera with an IBM FlashSystem 5200. This solution consists of two boxes connected with the remote mirroring feature of the FlashSystem. Each box has about 30 terabytes of storage and is replicated using a flash copy. The boxes are connected to a Power System running AIX, and I have implemented the EC tier with multiple layers of disk including MV, SST, and rotational disk. Additionally, I have set up Spectrum Protect to make backups to the TS 4300 tape. This project is currently being implemented and should be completed within the next month.

Our company uses the solution for robotic process automation, workflow automation, and document management. 

The solution is used for certain front-end systems, so users are not aware of the how it operates on the backend. About 30 front-end users access each application across various bank branches. 

The initial setup for installation was straightforward. 

The solution is very good. It offers very good performance, and very good data services to customers. 

The ONTAP is excellent. 

SnapMirror is very useful. It allows the customer to be able to see the entire relationship. It's one of the best features of the product.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

For the most part, the solution is stable.

The technical support has been pretty good for the most part.

NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays are used for system backups. We mainly use it to store our ERP.

Good in-built monitoring tools from the System|Performance Section Tab is valuable. From CloudIQ you can reach out to vCenter as well. ESRS (Call Home) on the service delivery part is valuable.

Remote Code update support (interactive or not) is free of charge, as you wish, nonetheless you are free to do it yourself as updates are cumulative and retained on each new code level.

We have three people who maintenance and support the solution.

An area for improvement is the available capacity. If a customer goes with a base model, which would have its own limit, they could not go beyond the model-supported capacity, so an increase would be good.

It has good stability

It requires only one technician for deployment and maintenance.

Dell EMC Unity XThas helped our organization with the high availability. It has been working very well and the performance has been good with an old flash solution that we are using. It has improved the reliability and speed of virtual machines.

I have had no problem at all. I think this is one of the most important things. It is very good. Maintaining it and deploying updates require very low maintenance. We haven't had problems. We had to replace a couple of disks in all these years, but it was pretty straightforward.

We can use Dell EMC Unity XT for backing up SAN and NAS drives. Mainly for databases and for file servers.

Implementing Unity was straightforward. We were able to move through the process of setting up the systems based on the procedure the vendor provided without any problems. Once we got started, I think it was just a couple of days. 

The most valuable feature is reliability. At the end of the day, it just runs.

This solution is easy to work with and easy to maintain.

We do have Dell EMC SC storage, which is very simple and straightforward, which is good for our small remote locations. However, it doesn't have the performance or features that the XT would. As far as block storage, Unity XT is probably the best bank for the buck for us because we can get block and file storage in one package. We don't have to buy a separate Isilon for object storage.

Including VNX, SC, and Unity/Unity XT, Dell EMC has provided all the storage solutions at the company for the last 20 years. 

We went to the Unity because of cost. I wasn't involved in the purchase of it, but the VPLEX maintenance was getting costly and it felt like the Unity was newer technology. The technology was better, the interface was better, interacting with it was better. It is a lot easier to use than the VPLEX. We figured it was a better solution than what we had and one that gave us more flexibility

The technical support is good and quick.

I would like a little faster response, but I don't think that their response is really that slow. They respond fairly quickly, at least fast enough for most issues. If it was an emergency issue, it might be different, as they probably would move it up the ladder anyway.

• One of the most useful features for us was the deduplication. It had been challenging for us to store certain types of data and to use patterns of storage to reduce storage size.
• The IOPS and the speed were also an important part of the solution.
• In addition, there was a Unity machine that offers block-level and NAS, and we used the block-level storage.
• We also use the side-to-side storage verification for the recovery site.
  
• Finally, the device was flexible and we could change the configuration to meet our needs.

The initial setup was completely straightforward. Anyone who can handle "next, next, next, finish" can deploy Unity. It was deployed within half an hour.

We installed it, connected it to fabric, updated the software, went through the initial configuration dialogue, and that was it. Most of the time in getting it up and running was spent on the data migration.

For deployment and maintenance it requires just one person. In our organization that person is our storage and virtual infrastructure administrator.

We are a solution provider and the Dell EMC Unity XT series is one of the products that we implement for our clients. My role is in pre-sales and I help to design the solutions.

It is primarily used to provide our customers with an on-site, high-availability production server. It is also used to provide disaster recovery

On the Data Domain side, the most attractive feature is the compression ratio, which none of the other products in the market are currently able to provide. On the Unity side, what customers mostly like is the availability guarantee. 

I would rate Dell EMC support seven out of 10. We had to follow up a lot. We sent an email beforehand, so they knew the model and everything about our environment. We expected them to do better homework and engage with my team. If they had done the implementation like that we could have saved a lot of time. That is why I rate them seven and not nine or eight.

This is a great storage solution and a product that I recommend. That said, it's not perfect. More can be done from Dell to improve the Unity series.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I'm in IT and my niche is digital transformation consulting. One of my customers needed a storage solution, so I recommended Dell EMC Unity XT. I'm not a storage consultant. I'm a digital transformation consultant, and one of my clients needed a storage solution.

I'm not a user of this product. My clients might need a solution from time to time, and what I do is I recommend solutions.

Dell EMC Unity XT is a good product.

I didn't get involved in the initial setup of this product, but I believe it was straightforward. It only took one to two days for the installation, then we were able to migrate our data.

I can recommend this product to others looking into implementing it.

I'm giving Dell EMC Unity XT a score of seven out of ten.

The installation of Dell EMC Unity XT is not difficult. You only need to do the rack mounting and plug it into the environment. However, configuring it for the application is quite tedious because it doesn't have any built-in templates for different workloads. Installation is plain and the solution is not a challenge but configuring it for the workload is the challenge.

The time it took for the implementation to have the solution to a level we can use for production was approximately 48 hours.

Dell EMC Unity XT is used for virtualization storage mainly with very few files and very little power consumption. We have on-premise deployment on our own organization. We have two Dell EMC Unity XT, and four IBM FlashSystems for our own consumption.  

Nowadays we implement Dell EMC Unity XT less and implement more Dell PowerStore solutions.

Before you can get support for Dell EMC Unity XT and other Dell EMC products, you have to spend time looking for the service tag number on your product, and this is a process that makes it difficult to access support, but once you gain access, they'll provide you with very good support.

My advice to others wanting to implement Dell EMC Unity XT is to start small because it's not commercially viable to maintain large data centers anymore. If you can downsize to the right size and try to offload the data. However, if you have critical applications, then it would require an on-premise solution. The best is still Dell EMC Unity XT.

I rate Dell EMC Unity XT a seven out of ten.

They can certainly improve in terms of monitoring. The monitoring could be improved, and more features could be added.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It is a plug-and-play deployment. It took half an hour to deploy and required two people. It requires routine updates for maintenance. 

This solution could be improved by offering containerization. This is something many of my customers are looking for. 

I have a limited budget for IT solutions so it would be great to provide Dell's solutions at a lower cost. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment took less than two days. However, to get all the paperwork through the government officials took about six weeks.

I mainly use Unity XT as a unified, hybrid storage system.

The initial setup of Dell Unity XT was straightforward because we had Dell representatives involved with our team. 

We had to do a migration because we wanted to ensure that there was no downtime during the migration process from the old solution to the Dell Unity XT.  To complete everything live without the business noticing that something is going on in the background. 

You cannot have two groups of equipment that are deployed at the same time. For example, the host, storage, and switches. We had to ensure that everything is deployed, updated, and then do the connections between the two solutions and start with the migrations.

There is no de-duplication. Unity used to be Bionics, which had de-duplication; however, in Dell Unity XT, the de-duplication was deprecated and is no longer available. 

The de-duplication function is back in the new Dell PowerStore, but it is missing in Dell Unity XT.

The initial setup of Dell Unity XT is straightforward.

Dell Unity XT could improve the compatibility of some of the features. Some of my customers had some problems. Additionally, it would be beneficial for the solution to have advanced AI and ML features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The initial setup is very easy. 

Depending on the size of the project, we assign two to ten engineers for setup and deployment which can take a total of one to three hours. 

We also provide six hours administrative training to our customers via small, on-the-job courses we have created. 

The data compression technology is very good. It's very good at fetching data as well.

It's very good if there are ever any failures. We've never had an issue with storage. 

There's deduplication available. 

It's easy to set up.

The stability of Dell Unity XT is great. We have not received any complaints about errors or failures in deployments.

We have been using this solution for three years, and most companies in Egypt partner with Dell EMC. It is the main storage solution that we sell to customers. It is deployed on-premises.

Their technical support can be very good. It depends on who you get, but that's how it's with any support organization. The individual makes a difference, but generally, their support has been pretty good. The only thing that I don't like is that you sometimes have to wait to get to a support engineer, but they've gotten better at that.

Huawei OceanStor is priced very well but is a bit complicated.

You have a price list but have to wait for a discount, which depends on the distribution, where you get it from. This is intransparent, I prefer a clear price policy.

I would prefer having a price quote based on whether you are a reseller if you have silver or gold status, or a customer.

The price list is high and you get a large discount from the price list. I prefer a comparable price list and a smaller discount.

We purchased the HyperMetro feature, but we have not really used it. It would've been very interesting, but we have mainly used the option and clean features.

Scalability is fine you can add to cluster other superior version or older version, and the orices is the same as the identical model and version. The OceanStor support the fail until 7 of 8 controllers without lost data and wiht the minimal impact to the performance, so the performance has been very good.

Huawei OceanStor is stable, it has high availability.

The solution's support is very helpful and responsive. 

Every time we need to raise the support, they provide support. They are responsive. However, as a customer, we cannot fix anything from our side. The documentation is not available. Everything is in a black box or something. 

We like that the solution is all-flash.

The solution has a sufficient amount of storage on offer.

The solution is very stable.

So far, we have found it to be quite scalable.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward and not overly complex. The installation and management are very easy.

The performance is very good. 

Technical support is quite good.

There are plenty of features available in this solution.

The installation is straightforward. The team did not do a lot of training and was able to handle the installation without issues.

So far, technical support has been great I have no complaints. they are helpful and responsive. 

We primarily use it for on-premises storage.

I'm using it with VMware and then with AIX systems, AIX power systems, and VMware as the VMFS.

Huawei claims if you choose their enterprise controller, such as the 8000, when you have a cluster of eight controllers, up to seven controllers can be down, and you can still be in operation. However, with their feature Metro Cluster that can be achieved by having 70 kilometers across two-site, you can have seven, nine.

The solution is stable enough as long as you do not do mistakes during implementation.

Most of the features which all enterprises storages solutions have are available in Huawei OceanStor Dorado.

The initial installation was straightforward.

The initial setup is straightforward and I would give that a seven and a half on a scale of one to ten.

We use this product for daily business and normal IT operations. We also use it for replication of one system to another system. We also use it for the hostings for HANA virtualization. Those kinds of replications and IT applications. We use a hybrid version.

The solution is mainly used for primary storage and in more than half of the cases, we use the Live Volume, the Synchronous Replication - this Automatic Failover. Its function is for primary storage on two sites.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the lack of reporting would be the main issue.

The solution is automated, but we still don't get a complete speech from the disc. The flash speed should be addressed. 

While the scalability is good, there are certain limitations. Our racks are at their limit, so we do not have the requisite scalability to expand. 

We would like to see replication of the data storage without the need to resort to third party tools. Storage to storage repetition would be a nice feature. 

We only build the basic foundation and the basic installation for the end-user on Dell EMC SC Series. However, I'm not sure what they install on it. Our main use case for Dell EMC SC Series is for VMware.

One of the most valuable features is the capability to switch between all-flash to hybrid, which have have actually done for one of our arrays. We started with the hybrid, with the limited if I'm not mistaken, and then over a period of time, we swapped all the hybrids with the SSDs. This was one of the big features because it gave us the capability to not stick with just one kind of media. 

Secondly, since it has sorted clustering, we were able to bring in the newer boxes and have it all clustered together. These were the two main features that we really looked into, which benefited our use case from an expansion/growth perspective. Another valuable feature is the ease of management. 

The SC includes various models, and we've deployed everything from their entry range to their mid-range storage. We mainly use SC for disaster recovery. 

I would not recommend Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series to others. There are better storage systems available, such as NetApp and Dell Unity

As we employ the VMware for three hosts, we are not able to scale it too much. But, for our present needs it is scalable. 

The solution could be more scalable and I believe we could increase certain resources should the need arise. 

Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series is not a mainstream product for us. It is a product that Lenovo obtained through NetApp. NetApp owns Engenio, the whole LSI company. We have been dealing with them for many years. It's a nice product, nothing strange, nothing wow.

 The DE is a very elementary array, just an entry-level product.

The most valuable features of the Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series are the dual controllers, available installation documentation, and the option of multiple host bus adapter interfaces.

This solution is mainly used in a very performance-sensitive environment for enterprise software storage.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It took approximately 20 minutes to deploy.

It's just a file IO and we've used it for training AI systems. We also use it for network boot for a number of our diskless machines, and it's proven rock-solid on that front, as well.

FlashBlade is absolutely stable. As in all products from Pure Storage, they offer some best quality and are stable. They are quite good in terms of the hardware, in the software. 

We don't face any trouble during the installation process or handling maintenance. 

Based on the user experience, we expect that they will not have any issues in the future, we hope.

The product is scalable and easy to expand.

If you need high throughput the FlashBlade is the best solution for you. It is the only one on the market that can provide 15GB per second from one node. And if you have another node, it will be 30GB per second. So the throughput performance is excellent for FlashBlade. It's not about the capacity, not about the features - it's about the throughput differences.

We have limited deployment of Flashblade.

I was not present for the installation, but I believe that it is simple. I don't think that it is complex.

One person is needed to deploy and maintain this solution.

My understanding is that it's pretty straightforward. I like to reference these things as LEGOs and building blocks. Pure seems to go this way. Basically, if you want to add storage, you're dropping in a tray. The tray is coming with the storage and some intelligence. You're building up as you go, and I love that.

It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release.

You can get ROI from Pure Storage FlashBlade, depending on the use case. The product has a specific ROI for fast restoration. Its ROI would also be different when you're using it for data management. For machine learning or AI purposes, you'll also get a different ROI from Pure Storage FlashBlade. As a backup solution, you can expect ROI from it in four years.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment process was easy and it took between three and four months to complete.

We really like the HPE infosight. it is an AI driven interface for hybrid cloud. it gives some more insights into any virtualized infrastructure such as performance issues, proactive recommendations etc. for example, get alerts and items of that nature It's been quite helpful so far. 

The performance of the solution is excellent. It performs far better than you would expect.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

It outperforms on latency. It's very fast. We're talking about 0.4 milliseconds. The faster, the fast data works, the faster you'll get the response. This is really low latency; it's a great performance.

The dashboards are very good.  It has a very user-friendly kind of dashboard that is easy to understand. There isn't any complex stuff or too much information. That said, it has deep integration in to HPE Infosight. It gives you so much information, even more than you want.

The customization capabilities are excellent.

We used HPE to do the full implementation of the solution. 

We have two engineers for the maintenance of the solution.

HPE Primera has high availability and is stable.

When taking into account the price, maintenance required, and performance of HPE Primera, it is an effective solution.

My primary use of Primera is as a storage solution for a huge conglomerate with multiple critical businesses including banks, airlines, and retail chains.

As per HPE, they said that it's pretty easy to add more storage in HPE Primera. With the existing controllers, I think it's pretty easy to add more storage. Right now we are using around 600 TB, not more than that, but it can support up to four petabytes.

The solution is stable. However, in the older versions, we used to see a lot of hardware failures and any indications we have a node battery to be replaced. We have almost 18 storage for the last three months, we are not receiving LSA messages, whereas before we were receiving one per month. We used to receive storage or hardware issues from the HPE Primera side. Things have been better.

I used it purely from an OEM perspective. I used it as a solutions architect working on behalf of our customers. They've got several different versions of Primera. Specifically, it was a Primera 650. They've also got Nimble Storage, GreenLake.

The use case was basically application data that was made available for OLTP online transactions. It was designed to have quick access to typical legacy data for online systems and to have high availability.

I used Pure Storage Flash Array in the past, but our current customer uses HPE Primera for storage.

The maintenance of HPE Primera doesn't require staff, but we had one engineer who took care of its installation and configuration.

I'm rating HPE Primera nine out of ten.

Primera's main advantage is its support for NVM drives and normal flash drives. It has some sort of AI analysis that automatically tells us how to optimize the performance.

The installation of HPE Primera is straightforward and it took one day to complete.

It is a scalable solution. I do not know the exact number of people using the solution, and only the Active Directory team has those details.

Our customer is happy with HPE Primera. They said they are getting good information and performance from the product. 

The solution is good and has 100 percent availability.

HPE offers a lot of storage solution options but they don't offer matrix storage which is available with some of their competitors like Dell and because of this, they can't meet some customer requirements.

The installation was straightforward.

The deduplication of the solution is excellent and the compression is quite helpful. These are the most useful aspects of the solution for us.

The initial setup is quite straightforward.

Technical support has been excellent.

Uptime and availability are first and foremost. The deduplication and compression capabilities are also excellent, allowing us to be very efficient with the physical hardware that we need to deploy on-prem in order to fulfill our requirements. It has given us excellent value for money without compromising performance.

The solution's snapshot capabilities and replication are very good features. Snapshots are allowing us to quickly build analytical models directly from production data. This gives us amazing insights into market trends and allows us to build more effective trading algorithms. Replication offers us unparalleled levels of resilience.

The management overall is excellent. Dell EMC continues to build on very solid foundations, which have been evolving for over two decades. 

The REST APIs are great.

The solution exposes excellent automation opportunities.

We have found the performance to be very good so far.

There are so many ways it has helped. It provides efficiencies through compression and it provides high availability through its solid-state drives. We literally turn it on and it does its thing.

When it comes to storage provisioning, a lot of it has been automated. This was true even prior to PowerMax, back with the VMAX. The days of provisioning the mapping and masking, and doing all those things manually, are over. A lot of that is automated through their tools. Overall, that automation is saving us about four hours a week.

• The cost of the entire solution
• Their dedupe rates
• Ease of use
• Simplicity

Data availability is very high. Data security is also very good. There are a lot of encryption methods available.

We use the solution’s NVMe SCM storage tier feature. There is almost no overhead or management time involved. It was kind of set it and forget it.

We are a very large customer of Dell EMC. We have several different deployments or installations. The biggest use case is probably a multi-tenant or shared environment where we provide many petabytes of storage for multiple customers who utilize that same infrastructure. We are a managed services provider in the cloud sector so we have to deliver high performance storage for thousands of customers who have to be up all the time.

There are a lot of different use cases, in general: Having large quantities of storage available that is always available, because of this uptime is important as is performance. As a service provider, we deliver storage on demand for our customers. This is important because we can adjust storage needs on a per customer basis. Whether it be increases or decreases in storage, this platform allows us to do that very easily.

We are using the latest release.

It is a good, resilient product.  

The good thing that we have found is the enhanced data savings. For example, in an XtremIO, we were seeing the space savings was 1:4 or 1:3. With PowerMax, I have seen 10:1 and 12:1. This is something that has really come out as a distinctive feature and is helping us a lot.

The Unisphere GUI has been enhanced. A lot of options have been added to the GUI. Though, if somebody is planning to buy PowerMax, they should also have some associated training with that.

We would like more documentation, a guide to the features of the PowerMax. We needed to use the option to reclaim storage and we had to chat with the Dell EMC team.

Based on our experience with VMAX, there isn't any hardware failure or something like that in PowerMax. Performance-wise also, everything is fine. We haven't faced any performance issues or any hardware failure. Its performance is great as compared to VMAX. Its I/O per second rate is higher than the old model.

We can use it block-wise, and we can also use it at the file level. It is good for any environment.

I am the solution administrator for Telcel. I use it to analyze the host and for data availability. It is a useful tool for me. I use it a lot every day. It is used for mission-critical operations.

We use the NVMe SCM storage tier feature, and that's how we're able to do the service level capability (SLA). We have storage class memory as a part of our deployment, and we have about 10% of our storage sizing allocated to storage class memory. With that, we are able to create different service levels for the disk groups or loans provisioned from this storage.

It most definitely helps in improving storage-related performance in our environment. The way our core banking solution works is that we have what we call ODS blocks. So, for leveraging that SLA, we were able to implement some kind of priority for those ODS blocks. Oracle had said that this is something for which their Exadata has a special way of doing, but based on my own assessment, we are able to achieve relatively similar levels of performance by using PowerMax.

Before we deployed this solution, we used to struggle with processing about 100,000 transactions in 10 minutes. We are now able to process about 350,000 or more transactions. These are conservative figures. We did hit much more than that, but conservatively, we are able to see about 300% performance improvement as compared to the SSD storage that we had previously from IBM. We have metrics to show that. The performance is different, and it is better than what we were used to.

We are in our ideal environment in which the storage double acts as our UAT and our test environment. So, we've seen remarkable deduplication in that environment because we are able to expand the footprint much more than what we are able to do in production. The production environment is a bit more controlled, but in our DR UAT environment, we are able to stretch those capabilities. The metrics that we see and the number of environments that we're able to create is quite remarkable.

It provides NVMe scale-out capabilities, which is pretty awesome. We currently have a plan to scale up. We started off with about 100TB. Based on the performance that we've seen, we're consolidating more workloads on the storage. We need to scale up a bit, and we find it very valuable to be able to do that. The ability to scale out and scale up marginally depending on what you want is quite valuable to us.

PowerMax improved our storage performance and allowed us to consolidate our old storage into one platform. It's faster than the older EMC equipment we replaced. We had a few different storage arrays, and a couple of them were approaching the end of maintenance, and one was a year away from the end of its maintenance. So it was time to either spend a ton of money on renewing maintenance or replace them. At the same time, PowerMax has made storage provisioning more difficult because it's not as intuitive as other arrays, but it's still a good solution for our mission-critical workloads.

We're using SRDF, but it hasn't affected our storage network bandwidth requirements. We haven't had any issues, so we haven't had to increase the size of any of our connections. Inside the data, there certainly wouldn't be any issues. The only problem would be replicating to the other site, and we haven't had any issues. We have a reasonably large pipe between the sites.

I work in data storage as a senior administrator.

I use multiple Dell EMC protection and storage tools like VMAX and PowerMax network for data domains. This product is an onsite data center and we have two PowerMax boxes. One of them is for our main site and the other is for our disaster recovery (DR) site.

We use PowerMax SRDF as our main application.

Our primary use case for PowerMax is hosting our VMware environment with VMware SRM hosted on and connected to both. The PowerMax does the SRDF replication for VMware SRM, and some of the workload on it is for the physical environment that consists of Unix, AIX, and Sun Solaris. In addition to that, we have physical Windows and Linux servers as well. We have 1,200-plus virtual machines hosted on PowerMax.

We have two PowerMax 8000s, each deployed at a different site. The capacity of the PowerMax at the primary site is 500 terabytes, and approximately 200 terabytes at the DR site.

We value maximum system uptime because our projects are associated with a government customer. We have medical ERP, which is used throughout Russia, covering 8 time zones. If it fails, then we have big problems. Therefore, the stability of the system is important for us.We are using PowerMax and VMware vSphere Virtual Volumes (vVols).

We use Power Pass, which is an additional software from Dell EMC, alongside multi-passing in our SAN network. This allows us to balance uploads and optical links of our SAN network.

The main improvement for us is that we have seen up to 12x performance improvements after moving from earlier, mid-range Dell EMC storage to PowerMax. Some of our reports, which were long-running, are now completed in a few minutes. Something that would take two hours is completed in 15 minutes and that has improved productivity. 

We also used to get timeouts from our storage, but now, after migrating to the PowerMax, there are no timeouts because the latencies are in microseconds, compared to the milliseconds of our old solution.

Our bandwidth requirements have been reduced because of the compression and the dedupe that we are getting with the built-in SRDF. It is bandwidth-optimized. And the best part is the reverse replication. Suppose you activate your DR. When you have to come back to the main array, only the changes are synced. That is unlike many other products. Here, only the changed tracks need to be updated, making the reverse replication very fast.

Also, by enabling the compression and deduplication, we get a very good level of compression and dedupe, of 4:1, which means if you have 40 terabytes, you only need to buy 10 terabytes. There are cost savings there. And by default, thin provisioning is in place, which also gives you at least a 40 percent reduction. And because of the bandwidth optimization, the link required for the DR replication is also reduced, meaning you are saving on the bandwidth costs. We have easily saved 50 percent.

Overall, you are getting very high-performing and reliable storage.

The most valuable aspects include the remote replication features. It allows us to protect our data using different data centers and replicate bi-directionally between our two main data centers.

We work in healthcare and have to ensure that our data is always available because it can directly affect patient care. This platform is reliable in supporting our data availability. We now have a higher-performing platform and are able to consolidate our workloads into one single platform.

They are now experiencing problems with Dell's specifications. They have a typical reporting period of five days and nine hours each day till Friday. 

Right now, on the enterprise side, they want 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is not available in Romania, which is why you need to retain inventories or have some replacement components on hand to accomplish this type of integration with other vendors.

We are using this solution as our main storage. We use it with VMware, as well as our databases. We are customers of Dell and I'm a team lead for network and infrastructure. 

The software layer has to improve. The software is promising but not prominent.

We have upgraded more than 21 things. We have four artists and have had to upgrade the codes. 

There are several upgrades required, but we are slowly catching up to them.

There are not many drill-down options available. EMC is providing many reporting tools that are not available in Pure.

They need better reporting. Some of the tools are missing. EMC is a step ahead in that area.

The usage at the host level has some limited options.

Being able to have broken files on-site on the same appliance is quite useful.

The newer version of NVME has a really noticeable difference in quality versus the last generation. It's better in terms of latency. It allows for so much more input.

The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward. 

The stability is quite good.

We've found the scalability to be excellent.

The price of the product isn't too high.

The overall performance is great. The single workload performance available from Pure is higher than the SolidFire can provide. 

It's very simple to deploy and manage. Those are probably the two biggest aspects for us.

Everything has been very easy and very intuitive from a support standpoint and from a deployment standpoint. 

In terms of the upgrade procedure, we've gone through that in the last year and it was very smooth. It met expectations.

Technical support has been helpful and responsive. 

I have no complaints about Pure's customer service and support. I've never had a negative experience with these guys. They're always fast, gentle, and ready to help. They offer ample support, and [inaudible 00:06:16]. If you connect FlashArray X to the cloud, they will inform you about any potential issues before they cause an outage. 

Its speed is superior to our existing Unity x00 model. There are three different models of Unity. There is x00, which is the original model for Unity. There is x50, and now you have x80s. It has performed substantially better than our x00 model and a little bit better than our x50 model. I cannot rate it against the x80s on the Unity class, but from what we've got, it has beaten those two models performance-wise. This is bearing in mind that those x00 models were there before they had their own X-series with the NVMe flash.

The solution is very straightforward to set up. It's easy. It's not difficult. 

Deployment of an array took an hour. Implementation of the product did take a while, due to our complexity, however, it works right now. 

I have one staff member for managing the array and then the database team is about four people and it's a global database.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

Since we have deployed Pure FlashArray X NVMe we have not had any major issues with failures or performance on these arrays.

I rate the stability of Pure FlashArray X NVMe a ten out of ten.

It improves performance 2:1 or better. It also saves space by 80%. It takes only about 20% of the space that prior generation products took. 

It uses about 85% less energy, which is a big deal, and it also protects against cyber threats and ransomware.

When it runs on the virtual machines in the public cloud, or it runs on-premises, you get about three times the capacity in the public cloud than you would get by using the storage that a cloud provider offers. It is not a well-known secret, except for the people who have to pay the bills for storage in the public cloud. Public cloud storage is very expensive. It is much more expensive than storage on site. So, being able to reduce the cost of public cloud storage by two-thirds is a big deal, and this product allows you to do that, which is an advantage.

It is smaller, and it uses less energy. It puts less into the data center, which is a big deal. Heat is a big issue in data centers, and the larger the data center scales, the more is heat. Because there are no moving parts and no motors, and they use so much less electricity, these systems don't dump a lot of heat into the computer room. That is really important because as your data centers scale-out as companies grow, the heat in the data center starts to limit the ability to have air conditioning power and the amount of storage you can put in the data center. One of the big advantages of this technology is that it runs so cool and uses so little power. I've walked in a lot of data centers, and people have fans running to even off hotspots, and they're running big chillers. There is one data center nearby, and when you get within a block or two of that, you can hear the cooling systems. The cooling systems are taller than the building. They're in a big, chain-link cage mounted out in the parking lot, and they're just roaring all the time trying to take the heat out of the data center. The best way to solve that problem is not to put the heat into the data center in the first place.

You get value for money, because the product is good in terms of control failure. In general, it gives us peace of mind but we have an issue with their support because they don't handle our issues very well.

The solution is stability. It's a great solution and if it is maintained in time and updated with the latest server, it will remain a great solution.

I have experienced firsthand the benefits of this technology. In terms of storage efficiency, the lack of moving parts has greatly improved the functionality of the system, as well as reducing the need for repairs and servicing. Additionally, the battery system, which is integral to the IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe, has also played a significant role in improving the overall performance and productivity of the system.

• Flexibility
• Performance
• Easy of use

It also has some very good compression capabilities. 

We were looking for a solution that was easy to install in our VMware environment, that was flexible. PowerStore X is a type of a VMware cluster that you install inside your environment. If you have a VMware environment, like we have in production, it's easy to install and use.

It enables us to add compute or capacity independently. We have also deployed some apps on PowerStore, even though the PowerStore we have is not the biggest one you can buy. One of the main characteristics of PowerStore is that it is like another piece of VMware, so you can run applications on top, applications that have direct access to the storage. The ability to add compute or capacity independently is great because it adds more flexibility to our environment. You are not adding only storage, but you're adding some not-so-big computing capability. You have the possibility of adding some virtual machines, running NVMe storage, and that is a real plus for this solution.

In addition, PowerStore's built-in intelligence for helping to simplify IT operations is incredible. When we approached PowerStore, we had an idea that it was a normative platform, but we were impressed by the capability of the solution. It's probably one of the best pieces of storage that we have installed here.

We've had no issues with the machines since turning them on.

The machine supports "six nines" of availability. Anything they could do to push it closer to "seven nines" of availability would be extremely beneficial.

The way you're able to manage all your PowerStores as one solution is very good for us. PowerStore enables you to federate or cluster multiple appliances with automated load balancing. In terms of management, it's helpful that we can do it from a single interface where we're able to manage multiple PowerStores. When you have multiple PowerStores, it works intelligently by running the workloads based on the needs of the infrastructure.

The solution's machine learning and automation work well when it comes to optimizing resources. It does inline deduplication which means that the net the amount of storage you have available is bigger. It can do all kinds of optimization in the system itself and that works very well.

PowerStore is joined to four application servers in a cluster. We're running an application that we use to monitor our activity in the financial markets. We collect all the data from the market—books, trades, orders—that we send to the market. In terms of volume, we are collecting about 100 million rows a day for the books, 10 million a day for the orders, and about 500 rows for public trades.

It is a mission-critical application because of compliance and the regulators. We have to maintain this kind of monitoring because it's a direct link to our activity in the regulated market.

We have a team of four engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

We are very impressed by the power of the system. We have gained performance for all our virtual machines and our system is running very fast.

Another benefit, for us, is the dedupe rate.

VMware integration with the product is good. We use vSphere, which is one of the main VMware functions. In addition, we use vSAN for storage, and we have to use the SIEM.

This solution has helped us to simplify our storage operations, although we have a lot of storage devices and too few administrators. Because of this, we're looking for a software solution to assist us with administration. This is something that we will be doing next year.

Overall, we're quite happy with the product because we can move the data that is stored on more than 10 of our current storage devices to a single PowerStore. In terms of efficiency, this solution is the best choice for us.

PowerStore is easy to use. All the drives use soft encryption. To upgrade it, you download the app, and it runs by itself. It's very easy to deploy, share, and create volumes. It's active, so you can have two nodes on one appliance. If Node A goes down, you still get node B at the bottom running. 

I would rate PowerStore's machine learning and AI eight out of 10 because customer automation is very easy. It's just a click of the button, You can also use what they call Cloud IQ, which is an online storage and monitoring software. If you log on to the internet, you can check on your plans to see how much space is left. Cloud IQ analytics software is free as long as you have an account with Dell.

Dell's built-in intelligence is the best because it can also calculate how much data is needed for storage beforehand and if you need to add more drives or anything. The built-in intelligence can adapt quickly to changing workload requirements. We were able to migrate from IBM storage by uploading an image. With other devices, it's sometimes hard to migrate from different forms of storage, but PowerStore was very quick. We didn't have any downtime because once we were able to create the image, we just had to do a cut-over on the other side. 

Pretty soon it's going to be Meditech certified, so it's going to be able to run Meditech. Right now we are using a different solution to run Meditech, but once it gets certified, we'll be able to move from the other appliance. VMware integration is very easy too. PowerStore gives us leverage, we can tell how much space is allocated to the VM and what's happening on a VM.

PowerStore helps to simplify IT operations. At the site where it is installed, we have consolidated two tiers with the high-IOPS and lower tiers. We have enough capacity with lower power consumption and enough performance to handle the required overload.

It gives us the capacity and the performance we need. Before, things were on 10K disks, while this is flash. There is a very big difference. Previously, we were connected directly, with a back-to-back connection between servers and storage. Now, we have multiple servers connected to SAN switches and those switches are connected to the storage. For sure, the performance of the system is sky-high. In terms of IOPS we are fully satisfied by the PowerStore.

We use the solution’s built-in VMware hypervisor to run VMs and virtualized applications, directly on the storage appliance. We manage multiple sites and we don't have enough teams to allocate support at all sites. So our support team handles all our sites. It's very important for us to have a consolidated infrastructure that we can manage remotely, without needing someone available locally to do the patching/power-up/creation and life cycle management tasks. Having this box, along with the integration with VMware, and VMware's capabilities, gives us what we need.

We use the PowerStore for our development environment. The frame is a repository for all our VMware infrastructure data stores and the applications that live on those data stores are mainly real-time voice applications in call centers.

We use it with Cisco switches and it's pure block only.

Reporting is an area that could be improved. It's very simplistic sometimes, and some of the very technical guys on my team want to see more of the details and be able to massage the report a little bit better.

We use this solution for VM and some AI storage. It's mostly an internal use server. We use it for the lab, and customers can access it. We use iSCSI on it. 

The main improvement has been storage efficiency. The price per gig of what we're able to store has been the biggest aspect the business has seen.

The initial setup is straightforward. The time it takes to deploy this solution depends on what a customer is looking for. It usually takes between two to three days. We start implementation by gathering the customer requirements before going on-site and completing the implementation.

Our older PowerStore is where most of our demos are located. We're just using it as a block of storage and storage to power the VMware environment. That's been our main use case.

It provides a big benefit when upgrading a new VMware environment. For example, in a big environment with 10 to 30 ESXs, you can take everything and put that into PowerStore. So, it is cost-effective, which is very important and has been massive for us. You reduce almost 80% from the hardware and work directly from PowerStore. Building hardware, especially in a big VMware environment, is a big issue for my organization.

It brings us a lot of security, creating security between the containers. Then, we can separate an environment for security. You have IDS, IPS, the firewall, etc., but if you take the environment that you built on the containers then it creates a different security.

I use the security between the rack server and PowerStore. Or, we use a connection with the fiber channel. It also separates the network from the SAN storage. This is the most important security when you are connecting storage to PowerStore for any environment.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The solution's scalability, capacity, and performance are great. 

Migrations are very easy and fast. The solution works well with native products such as VxRail, Unity, or VMware. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

It took less than a day to deploy.

This solution does not require any specific maintenance.

The initial setup is straightforward and doesn't take long.  

The initial setup of Dell PowerStore requires expertise, but for someone trained in the solution, it's not too complicated.

One person is needed for configuration, and two people are needed for installation and cabling.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It's a very straightforward installation and implementation. It's really very nice.

The time it takes for deployment is determined by several factors; it is not a simple, straightforward task because you must have a network ready from the customer's side and collaborate with the customer to develop a solution for his readiness of the site, such as the cabinet, networking, and cabling. Once everything is ready, it can take approximately one week to two weeks maximum.

We require two technicians for racking, and stacking.

NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is mainly used for data center storage. It is very good. It can handle applications well, such as Oracle, or any other application. It is good at keeping all types of data secure. It has a great security layer.

Our primary use case for this solution is different projects, transaction systems and mail infrastructure.

The rail system that Pavilion uses to mount up into a standard Dell or APC cabinet extends further back than normal rails, and they cover up the zero PDU slot. So, I don't like the rail system that comes with the device. That is my biggest complaint.

The solution's performance and density are excellent.

Typically, there is a trade-off. You can have incredibly dense storage in a small footprint sometimes, but the trade-off to that is you need a lot of horsepower to access it, which ends up counterbalancing the small footprint. Then, sometimes you can have very fast access to a storage array, but that usually requires a more comprehensive infrastructure.

This kind of balance, to somehow fit it all into one chassis, in a 4U server rack, is unheard of. You have the processing proxy accessing the data and almost a petabyte of flash accessible.

It's a very small footprint, which is important to our type of industry because we don't have massive servers.

We have benefited from this technology because we were able to centralize a lot of workflows. There is normally a trade-off, where you can have very fast local storage on the computer, but in a collaborative environment that's counterproductive because it requires people to share files and then copy them onto their system in order to get the very fast local performance. But with Pavilion, basically, you get that local NVMe performance but over a fabric, which makes it easier to keep things in sync.

We have been able to consolidate storage and as part of a multi-layer storage system, it plays a very important part. For us, it cuts down on costs because we essentially get an NVMe tier that's large enough to hold everyone's data, but the other thing for us is time and collaboration. Flexibility is worth a lot to us, as is creativity, so having the resources to do that is incredibly valuable.

If we wanted to do so, Pavilion could help us create a separation between storage and compute resources. It's one of those things where, in some environments, such as separation is natural and in other environments, there's an inclination to minimize the separation between compute and data. But to that point, Pavilion has the flexibility to allow you to really do whatever you want.

In that sense, you have some workloads where compute is very close to the data, such as iterative stuff, whereas we have some things where we simply want bulk data processing. You can do any of that but for us, that type of separation is not necessarily something we are concerned with, just given our type of workflows. That said, we have that flexibility if necessary.

This system has allowed us to ingest a lot of data in parallel at once, and that has been very useful because it's a parallel system. It's really helped eliminate a lot of the traditional bottlenecks we've had.

Pavilion could allow for running additional virtual machines on existing infrastructure, although in our case, the limitation is the core densities in our hardware. That said, it is definitely useful for handling the storage layer in a lot of our VMs. The problem is that the constraints of our VM deployments are really in just how many other boxes we have to handle the cores and the memory.

Performance-wise, this product is faster than pretty much anything we've seen. In terms of the density and how it compares, what we have in-house is not very extensive in terms of other things we use, but in terms of our research and actually, what we have used, the density is much higher than anything else we've seen.

We can basically store the entire company's data inside of one unit, when the unit is properly configured. As it is now, it's equivalent to replacing three or four racks of equipment. The density is incredibly high.

This solution provides us with flexibility in our storage operations. It's software-defined storage, so we can allocate capacity however we want. It uses thin provisioning, which is convenient for us, and all sorts of other enterprise features that come with it that we haven't used quite yet. But, we can imagine we'll be taking advantage of them as the usage against the unit rises.

Our use case is primarily about performance, so consolidation has not saved us in terms of costs or capital expenditures. Our implementation of the product is an add-on to what's currently at the company. We've taken data out of the existing infrastructure and just moved it. The migration has allowed us to use it a lot faster, but we haven't gone through a consolidation exercise where we've gotten rid of the old equipment and now just depend on the new unit.

Absolutely, we are able to run more virtual machines on our existing infrastructure. With respect to storage management, we've reduced the amount of work that was required. In fact, we can eliminate most of the staff that has been dedicated to doing that in the old equipment. Now, we need very few people to administer the entire company using Pavilion. We can basically have one person manage all of the company's engineering data.

In terms of cost savings, in our situation, the cost we're saving is not headcount but rather, engineering time spent doing those kinds of activities. Where we may have had to spend a lot more time administering storage and IT equipment, we now have to spend much less time doing it, even though the headcount dedicated to IT is the same. Basically, opportunity costs have improved dramatically, as we've been able to assign staff to more value-added tasks.

We probably had three people spending between 25% and 50% of their time doing related activities, whereas now, we have one person spending perhaps 10% of their time.

One improvement I am hoping for in the next release is unified storage. The other storage systems we use are unified, but E990 is not unified. Only block storage is available. To get the same functionality with the E990, you have to configure it through the NAS setup, which adds some additional costs. I would also like more capacity in a single box — expand the space up to 4 petabytes.

Hitachi's effective capacity guarantee has been valuable for us. They provide us a certain capacity with a limit. When we reach this limit, we buy the next step. That means we always have enough capacity.

We use the solution for a specific department with about 200 people in it.

We haven't had to scale it because we bought the biggest option for this solution. We don't plan to increase our usage.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We used the solution basically for all operations. We got our ERP, Citrix, email (there was about a two wall to 18 terabytes with email), et cetera, that we had on the hybrid and we had our ERP system, which demands performance. We had that on the solution's all-flash.

We have a significant amount of data that is stored and retained. We have a rolling 365 days' worth of data. There are about 35,000 to 45,000 events per second that come into this solution and then get stored, long-term. That data also needs to be readily accessible, meaning that it can be searched on at any point in time. We have real-time security metrics that are run against that volume of data, so we need the data to not only be persistent and stored long-term, but also on fast storage arrays that can be readily accessed in a minimal amount of time. We've leveraged Zadara to house that storage as well as have it available to us so that we can query it very quickly.

We use iSCSI and Object multi-protocols. These simplify our operations a lot because otherwise we would need a lot of different products or interconnections. With Zadara Storage Cloud, all of this is just one type of connection. It works only with Ethernet, which means no Fibre Channel nor other protocols, like InfiniBand. It is just Ethernet, which is easy and simple. You can just use the protocols that you need. Today, this means we are not using NFS. But, never say never. Probably tomorrow or one day, if someone would just ask us to implement something mounted via NFS, we are ready to go. This is good because we don't need to buy another hardware or additional features. The best part is the fact that the cost covers everything, so you don't have to activate features by license, e.g., we don't need to pay more to activate NFS, CIFS, or iSCSI because we are not using them today. We still have them. So, we are free to use them whenever we want, which is good.

All our customers report the same story when we ask for a case study. With Zadara Storage Cloud, you simplify the management, which is absolutely true. 

Zadara Storage Cloud's agility is the most important part because all customers want agility today. Everyone wants quick answers, support, and features as well as the ability to provide storage with just some clicks or a simple request. 

Zadara Storage Cloud is elastic in all directions. We create a lot of events (marketing events, technical events, and public speaking) with VMware. They have always been available to sponsor, participate, or just integrate their experience. Even with features, we requested some specific features for the Italian market, then they just put them into the roadmap, which was great.

Having dedicated cores and memory absolutely provides us with a single-tenant experience. We have use cases in both categories, but we have customers who have a completely dedicated and private environment and it is particularly important for them. For example, if they are dealing with medical or patient data then they have a dedicated core and a dedicated disk, which is essentially their own private cloud.

It is important that we also have the flexibility for some of the lower-end services that we can have multi-tenant storage because not all of our clients require completely dedicated cores and disk space.

It is very important to us that Zadara provides various drive options because we're more of a niche cloud player, and we don't compete with Azure, AWS, or other large providers. We tend to have bespoke solutions, so having the different drive options gives us the flexibility we need to do that.

Zadara has improved our business with the main benefit being that we generate quite a bit of revenue every month from the services that we provide others, and I don't think that would have been possible without this product. What really attracted us to Zadara was the fact that they have the pay as you grow model.

As a new cloud provider, say three years ago, it would have been quite a large investment for us to take on. Not just in the hardware but also in the skills and the knowledge required to set up and operate it. Zadara was a key enabler for us to be able to enter the cloud business because if it wasn't for them, it would have taken us a lot longer. We would have had to invest in more people and as well in more hardware. As it is now, we are generating revenue and it gives us some credibility with our larger customer base.

Although we only use cloud storage services, Zadara is an agile solution that offers compute and networking, as well. This agility means that they are very quick at turning things around, which is key for us because we're able to implement solutions for customers quite quickly. Ultimately, we can start bringing in revenue for sales quite fast, as opposed to some of our traditional business. 

If you take fiber, for example, it could take up to three months to realize the value of the sale before it actually starts to build. Whereas with Zadara, it is so agile and so quick and easy to set up that even in a few days, we can turn a sale around into billing. This quick conversion from sale to revenue is also important for the business.

We didn't have a cloud before we had Zadara so, in that regard, it has increased our performance by 100%. In fact, we have been able to redeploy people and budgets to more strategic projects because it helped us to enter the cloud environment and to offer new services to our customers.

Our initial application was probably the simplest one. We were sunsetting a product, but we needed to do some movement and we needed some additional storage, but we knew that what we needed was going to change within six months as we got rid of one product and brought in another. To handle this, we started deploying Block storage with Zadara, which we then changed to Object storage and effectively sent back the drives related to the Block storage as we did that migration. This meant that we did not have to invest in new technology or different platforms but rather, we could do it all on one platform and we can manage that migration very easily.

We use Zadara for most of our storage and it provides us with a single-tenant experience. We have a lot more customer environments running on it and although we don't use the compute services at the moment, we do use it for multi-tenant deployment for all of our storage.

I appreciate that they also offer compute services. Although we don't use it at the moment, it is something that we're looking at.

The fact that Zadara provides drive options such as SSD, NL-SAS, and SSD Cache is really useful for us. Much like in the way we can offer different deployments to our customers, having different drive sizes and different drive types means that we can mix and match, depending on customer requirements at the time they come in.

With available protocols including NFS, CIFS, and iSCSI, Zadara supports all of the main things that you'd want to support.

In terms of integration, Zadara supports all of the public and private clouds that we need it to. I'm not sure if it supports all of them on the market, but it works for everything that we require. This is something that is important to us because of the flexibility we have in that regardless of whether our customers are on-premises, in AWS, or otherwise, we can use Zadara storage to support that.

I would characterize Zadara's solution as elastic in all directions. There clearly are some limits to what technology can do, but from Zadara's perspective, it's very good.

With respect to performance, it was not a major factor for us so I don't know whether Zadara improved it or not. Flexibility around capacity is really the key aspect for us.

Zadara has not actually helped us to reduce our data center footprint but that's because we're adding a lot more customers. Instead, we are growing. It has helped us to redeploy people to more strategic projects. This is not so true with the budget, since it was factored in, but we do focus on more strategic projects.

We are a disaster recovery company and we used Zadara as a storage platform for all of our disaster recovery solutions. We do not make use of the computing and networking services they offer. Rather, we only use the storage facility.

Our main environment is Zadara Storage, and then we have multiple VMware and Hyper-V virtual clusters that run the services we provide to our customers. We've also got numerous recovery platforms as well, which we can recover customer's environments onto. Zadara is a key underpinning of that because, without that common storage layer and the services running on top of that, we wouldn't have a business to run.

It's key for us, as a DR specialist, that we have the confidence that all of our systems and services are available all the time. Picking a vendor, be it Zadara or any other vendor, is really important to us because we have to trust that they're going to be there 24/7, every day.

The fact that we have offsite storage that is provided to us using iSCSI as a service has allowed me to offload certain storage-related workloads into Zadara. This means that when I have a planned failover, if I need to maintain the local storage that I have in my data center, I simply shift all of the new incoming traffic into Zadara storage. None of my customers even know that it has happened. In this regard, it allows us to scale in an infinite way because we do not have to keep adding more capacity inside our physical data center, which includes power, networking, footprint, and so on. The fact that Zadara handles all of that for me behind the scenes, somewhere in Virginia, is my biggest selling point.

With its dedicated cores and memory, we feel that Zadora provides us with a single-tenant experience. This is important for us because we are aware that in the actual physical environment, where Zadara is hosting our data, they have other clients. Yet, the fact that we have not had any kind of performance issues, and we don't have the noisy neighbor concept, feels like we are the only ones on that particular storage area network (SAN). It's really important for us.

Zadara provides drive options such as SSD and NL-SAS, as well as SSD cache, and this has been important for us. These options allow us to decide for different volumes, what kind of services we're going to be running on them. For example, if it happens to be a database that requires fast throughput, then we will choose a certain type of drive. If we require volume, but not necessarily performance, then we can choose another drive.

A good thing about Zadara is you do not buy a solution that is fixed at the time of purchase. For instance, if I buy an off-the-shelf storage area network, then whatever that device can do at the time of purchase, give or take one or two upgrades, is where I am. With Zadara, they always improve and they always add more functionalities and more capacities.

One example is that when we became customers, their largest drives were only nine terabytes in size. A year or so later, they improved the technology and they now have 14 terabyte drives available, which is good at almost a 50% increase. It is helpful because we were able to take advantage of those higher densities and higher capacities. We were able to migrate our volumes from the nine terabyte drives to the 14 terabyte drives pretty much without any downtime and without any kind of interruption to service. This type of scalability, and the fact that you are future-proofing your purchase or your operations, is another great advantage that we see with Zadara.

As far as I know, Zadara integrates with all of the public cloud providers. The fact that they are physically located in the vicinity of public cloud regions is a major selling point for them. From my perspective, it is not yet very important because we are not in the public cloud. We have our own private cloud in Miami, and not part of Amazon or Azure. This means that for us, the fact that they happen to be in Virginia next to Amazon does not play a major role. That said, they are in a place where there is a lot of connectivity, so in that regard, there is an advantage. We are not benefiting from the fact that they are playing nice with public clouds, simply because we are not in the public cloud, but I'm sure that's an advantage for many others who are.

Absolutely, we are taking advantage of the fact that they integrate with private clouds.

Zadara saves me money in a couple of ways. One is that my operational costs are very consistent. The second is that the system is consistent and reliable, and this avoids a lot of the headaches that are associated with downtime, reputation, and all of that. So, knowing that we have a reputable, reliable, and consistent vendor on our side, that to me is important.

It is difficult to estimate how much we have saved because it wouldn't be comparing apples to apples. We would be buying a system versus paying for it operationally and I don't really have those kinds of numbers off-hand. Of course, I cannot put a price tag on my reputation.

We have two people that do the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

We offer ongoing infrastructure support on behalf of customers. Zadara is a customer of the bank, which I work for. I'm also a vendor of the bank, however, we are taking care of the day-to-day. We maintain the solution in terms of day-to-day operations.

We use it as traditional disk storage, just like a normal SAN. We connect it to our SAN switch, and then from the SAN switch, it is also connected to the servers. We present the Zadara storage to those servers.