How has it helped my organization?
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.
What needs improvement?
The deployment could be a bit easier, because it's a bit tricky.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using it for more than a year now.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
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.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
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.
How are customer service and support?
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.
How was the initial setup?
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.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
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.
What other advice do I have?
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.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.