We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Before we used Pure Storage it took 93 days of employees who run the database to back up and restore databases. The scale of deployment basically went from several days to a few minutes."
"Because of the encryption, we have different storage and the encryption can go over both."
"All updates, upgrades, and hardware work are all performed on-line with no impact."
"The job of support for the storage engineers dramatically changed. We know more quickly the automation of the provisioning. We can now focus on things that bring more value to the company than just managing storage."
"We like the speed. It's very low latency. In virtualization, you can mask lots of problems, and even in code you can mask lots of problems, with low latency. It's just pure speed and low latency."
"Access speed and power consumption are most valuable."
"The performance is very good."
"It's just very easy for general block storage."
"One of the features, for us, that is important is the monitoring platform integrated into the solution. It has all the elements that we need to see, at all times, to be sure the platform is working right."
"The active-active option seemed to be working well and overall, it was a solid product."
"The performance is very good."
"It's a state of the art solution in storage systems. High-availability and performance are the strongest aspects of these machines."
"It is robust. It doesn't need too much troubleshooting. It is a good device."
"There are no significant challenges in terms of scalability, and it can accommodate larger storage capacities compared to other storage solutions."
"The feature I like best is the stability of the hardware."
"It's best features are its reliability and stability."
"The all-flash storage has tier replication capabilities."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"User friendly management interface."
"The Flash core models offer amazing performance."
"The most valuable features in IBM FlashSystem are IOPS, performance, duplication, and compression."
"The most valuable features were the performance of the array, i.e., very low latency and high IOPS. Plus, the management interface is very easy to use."
"The storage system is one of the best in the world."
"The solution is very easy to configure and use."
"I would like some form of QoS implemented. As a service provider, it would be beneficial to have it."
"They have a product, FlashBlade, which is their object storage integration, and that's something that we haven't integrated with yet. This might be an area for additional focus as it would play into scalability, because the very nature of object storage is that it's infinitely scalable."
"We haven't seen ROI yet."
"The credentials on the iSCSI interface are only available to type in with the Chrome browser, and not with the Firefox browser."
"Historical analytics would be useful. At the moment, they don't have any type of application built for historical analytics."
"The internal garbage collection process has been fixed recently in some OS updates so it is more efficient but that could be just a little better."
"This product has only two active controllers, whereas other solutions can have more. This is something that needs to improve."
"It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them."
"For the support windows to work, maybe they have to upgrade the firmware of the VSP. They changed the hardware or the disk. I don't know if it was the port blade they changed or a VM for a memory cache. Also, replacing the old target with the processor target would be fine. The old equipment is very easy to manage, and I don't have any bad commentary."
"The deployment could be a bit easier, because it's a bit tricky"
"The embedded management for installation feature has neither simplified nor complicated the management process, therefore, there is room for improvement."
"There is a drawback related to Hitachi's configuration flexibility. The Hitachi storage platform solution is not flexible. That means that both the Hitachi and the partner presale guys have to do a lot of work to design a solution."
"n future releases, I would like to see enhancements in the web GUI capabilities for direct management without additional PCM."
"One improvement I am hoping for in the next release is unified storage."
"The life-cycle of the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is too short. We only had approximately four or five years out of the solution before it was rendered its end of life."
"The complex setup, ease of use, and snapshot operations of this product need to be improved."
"Include an option to upload the support package to the IBM ECuRep when opening an IBM PMR."
"The deduplication and compression ratio is not very good. It's not reaching a very high ratio."
"The initial setup is complex."
"IBM should improve its data reduction development."
"The solution is quite expensive. That's one of the downsides to using it."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"I would like to see bigger modules."
"The ease of installation should be improved. We had issues with the configuration model."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM FlashSystem products are enterprise computer data storage systems that store data on flash memory chips. Unlike storage systems that use standard solid-state drives, IBM FlashSystem products incorporate custom hardware based on technology from the 2012 acquisition of Texas Memory Systems. This hardware provides performance, reliability, and efficiency benefits versus competitive offerings.
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 4th in NAS with 47 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 5th in NAS with 105 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "It's a high-performing solution with strong architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT, HPE 3PAR StoreServ and NetApp FAS Series, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage and Dell PowerMax NVMe. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NAS reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.