The easiest route - we'll conduct a 15 minute phone interview and write up the review for you.
Use our online form to submit your review. It's quick and you can post anonymously.
The product is used in our company since we have implemented a proxy server for our organization from Hitachi. With Hitachi, my company has dealt with the planning, implementation, and migration of the products. The migration was done specifically from our company's site. Hitachi provided the planning and implementation plans, and the full implementation process was carried out with the help of Hitachi's partner.
The solution's most valuable feature is that it provides a secure gateway with SSL inspection. The tool also allows our company to control a user's internet access on a time-based or quota-based basis.
The complex setup phase is an area where improvements are needed.
I have been using Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform since 2016.
It is a scalable solution because our company initially implemented it for around 50,000 users, and now we plan to increase the number to around 200,000 users.
My company does plan to increase the use of the solution in the future.
The product's support might have some issues. Hitachi provides on-site support. My company deals with Hitachi's customer support and engineers, as these are the two types of people available for on-site support.
The product's initial setup phase is complex and complicated.
The solution can be deployed in six months because our company needs each and every implementation node and the report required for it. Implementing the tool takes around six months.
For the implementation process, my company first had to have a meeting with Hitachi, after which we were given a plan which was discussed in our organization's internal meeting. My company goes through the two or three types of installation proposals received from Hitachi, and then we finalize it so that the implementation process can be started. A person from Hitachi is physically available on-site during the implementation process.
The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. In 2016, when my company wanted to implement Forcepoint, we found that it was available only on the on-premises version and not in the cloud.
In our company, we only pay towards the licensing charges associated with Forcepoint, as Hitachi is considered to be a third-party product for us.
Speaking about how the tool streamlined our company's data access and storage processes, I would say that previously, we were using Microsoft Project. Hitachi later approached our company with a proxy solution consisting of software and hardware components, and after having a few meetings, Hitachi explained to us the features and benefits of a proxy solution. Hitachi then took the inputs from our managers and management while taking into consideration areas like how many users would be using it and what other existing solutions are used in the company, after which our company was provided with a proper plan for implementation. For implementation, two people from Hitachi's end were appointed at our location, and they worked with four people from our company.
The product's reliability has been crucial for our company's operations.
Hitachi has been really good since it provides proper documentation, which provides proper information about the solution. Hitachi's support team is also good.
The people provided by Hitachi for on-site support are very experienced and helpful since, knowledge-wise, they are the best.
The cost-effectiveness of the use of the tool in my company stems from the fact that even though there is another product in our company that we use with Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform when it comes to Hitachi, the support personnel has deep knowledge to solve any problem on-site.
I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
I use it for data consolidation management tasks, and we'll go through the control apps. I go to the controller to do that.
Moreover, Hitachi VSP streamlined our data access and storage processes. So, it's got NFS and CIFS. And the CFIS, too, depends on the disk type we put in, it can format files and data for different protocols like SMB.So it's versatile in its own ways.
We use it in conjunction with the cloud. So it's multi-tenant, making sure that it is cloud-ready. This is cloud-ready hardware and software. And, the VSPs have the capacity to integrate other third-party software and the engine is very, very powerful.
The deployment could be a bit easier, because it's a bit tricky.
I have been using it for more than a year now.
When I look at storage, it's about uptime, disaster recovery, and all those things.
So, its reliability has been crucial to our operations.
I haven't had any issues with the stability of the product.
Normal issues, as we go through patch management, make sure that we do not install anything without looking at the bug scrubbing and all that stuff, and ensure that we always have a stable platform. Do our research and in the background, talk to Hitachi and not take it just by ourselves.
It's a multi-tenanted model, a monthly tenant, it's not just one organization we're hosting. But depending on the customer, we just bring on a tenant.
It's modular. So I can keep growing. But, again, every modular thing also has its limitations. For example, if I take an E590 series, it can grow so much because the engines can support and handle so much, then you gotta go up to the higher one.
What I haven't seen is if the E590 is compatible with the next level up, if they are interoperable, or if they have to be treated as a separate cluster. I am not sure about that yet.
The customer service and support are reasonably good. The environment I work in, there always remains an element of surprise, and there are restrictions.
But Hitachi has good technical people. The customer account manager is good and gets the thing straightaway.
The setup is in three parts. One is the field setup, with someone coming in to do the initial configuration, which would have an IP address, and work away from it.
Followed by the Professional Service setup, which is architecture and design. It's a very versatile box, so that setup is very tricky. We have to get it right the first time.
If you make a mistake and don't design or architect the platform correctly, you're going to have to unwind, which can be done with the help of snapshots.
With the vCenter, you control these things, and in this case, the controller. And you take a snapshot and put it on another box.
So it could be easier to deploy.
Architecture-wise, it's actually at a competitive price point. It is not cheap. But for the purpose-built, and one thing I've never seen, which is probably an industry thing, is that it's modular to start with, but it has to be the same model and make for it to grow.
Every business is different. Like, when I was using the Dell EMC PowerStore 1000 (not Dell 1000P), the cost analysis for that specific business is different from what I'm doing now. So, it depends on if I'm comparing apples to apples, and in this case, it's not. It's apples to oranges.
We did consider the cost when we were sizing Hitachi against another product. But ultimately, it came down to more than just the price. You need to look at the technology, the engineers available for DevOps support, and what kind of engineers you can find in the market. Are they more familiar with NetApp or Hitachi?
So, while buying the hardware and software itself might not be the most expensive part, the ongoing cost of maintenance and hiring qualified labor can be significant. If you just look at the upfront cost of hardware and software, maybe there are other products that are a bit cheaper.
But then there might not be enough qualified engineers. And not enough certified engineers for those other products.
If we had to train people and get them up to a higher standard of certification, the time investment for the company or organization would have been much higher. So, from a one-time cost perspective, maybe there were other products that were cheaper upfront. But in this case, considering the ongoing labor costs, Hitachi ended up being a more cost-effective option.
A good part is it is scalable. It's reliable. It is both at all. But it does not work well with BusyBox. Even though it supports multiple vendors, some features do not support multiple tenants; they are not vendor-adopting.
For example, bring in a NetApp and try to use it with Hitachi. You'll either have limitations with that application or you'll actually always have to do extra patching. Or the other tricky part that needs to happen.
Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.
