We performed a comparison between Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Vantara, IBM, Dell Technologies and others in Frame-Based Disk Arrays."Having fast storage allows actual servers to perform in high capacity so we don't have slowdowns on our applications."
"We put a fair amount of stress on it because we run sequel workloads and we run web applications where the same web files are hit over and over. We have had almost zero stability issues with that SAN, that has been really great for us."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"We were actually able to do multiple upgrades, including head upgrades and moving between the platforms, M20 and M50, over the years. We have never once lost a ping and have never had an outage due to an OS upgrade or a complete head upgrade."
"We are very happy with the data deduplication and compression ratio that we have on the platform."
"I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is."
"The deduplication and compression meet all of our system requirements."
"The solution is easy to scale. I'm running two environments right now, so I need to scale. I'm running a part technology. I've got an A-side and a B-side."
"The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption."
"The product provides a good storage space."
"The biggest benefit of the Hitachi platform is 100 percent storage uptime. It's also highly cost-effective."
"The most valuable features in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series are Shadowimage, easy to manage equipment, and upgrading the firewire is very simple."
"This is a good product with high capabilities and high reliability."
"Data optimization, compression, and deduplication are the most important features for us."
"In terms of performance and ability, the product can stand up against its competitors since the solution offers two controller systems to users."
"We have many different types of replication, such as remote and drop local replication. All these features and licenses are already available. These are basic features available in the current model. Additionally, the performance has been good in our experience."
"The hybrid array provides scaleable, predictable, high performance with no capacity constraints."
"Currently, the solution fails to support file screening."
"The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them."
"We do have an issue with the vCenter integration. Pure Storage says it has a lot of free space, but vCenter says its completely full. This is because their dedupes are saved as space, but Vcenter still detects the disk as completely full. So, we do have an issue with that."
"There are many features which need to be added, particularly on the replication side."
"Automation could be simplified."
"They could improve the price."
"We understand that they're thinking about it, but one of the things that would be nice is if they added some basic file-level capabilities to the platform. The idea is that they would run a basic NFS or CIF share from the controllers. FlashBlade is the powerhouse for File and Object storage, but if you don't need all that power, a lightweight file function would make FlashArrays more versatile."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS."
"The exterior display needs to be improved."
"The solution is priced higher than its competitors."
"The snapshot and clone operation functions can be made easier."
"The initial deployment was somewhat complex when it came to the installation because of the network connectivity. It was more difficult, in this specific case, than with other platforms."
"If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console."
"For mission critical issues the performance is low."
"Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform needs to improve its scalability options where there are a few shortcomings."
"The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage."
"The complex setup, ease of use, and snapshot operations of this product need to be improved."
More Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Frame-Based Disk Arrays while Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 1st in Frame-Based Disk Arrays with 48 reviews. Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is rated 10.0, while Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] writes "Good price-performance ratio, provides simplified provisioning and management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "It's a high-performing solution with strong architecture". Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series.
See our list of best Frame-Based Disk Arrays vendors and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all Frame-Based Disk Arrays reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.