Dell PowerScale (Isilon) Reviews

The product allows us to handle NFS file systems with SMB shares. It's object-oriented as well.

Our major use is for SMB and NFS file exports for the open systems area. Both are heavily used in our company.

PowerScale is used across different platforms to help consolidate data storage and multiple applications into a single platform. We have file systems that are both NFS, and they are being shared with our open systems. However, some are also SMBs, so they can get to it from their Windows systems as well. It's very helpful for our applications.

PowerScale cybersecurity, including its ransom protection, is very important to our organization. I've got a session coming up where I'm going to learn more about that. We had a presentation on that at my work with our technical support group.

The solution in general has allowed us to move off of multiple Windows boxes where they had huge data stores, and we migrated it to the Isilon. There is just one point of contact there. It's made it easier and more cost-effective.

PowerScale has helped free up our employees' time to focus on other business priorities, however, it's hard to assess an exact number.

It's easy to manage. The web UI is very intuitive, and there's CLI also that you can use to manage it.

I'm happy with the product the way it is, however, I like the improvements that always come out with the new 1FS code upgrade.

Technical support could be improved. Whenever we have a hiccup, we'd like to get it fixed maybe quicker. 

I've been using the solution for about six years. 

The solution is stable. 

We have 800 people using the solution.

In terms of increasing usage, we're not going to implement it elsewhere, however, we always have new employees coming on.

Technical support varies depending on the person you get.

We used to have a chat feature available on the support site. It's not available to us anymore. We tried to use it and it comes up saying, "No one is available."

It used to be easy. We would get on the chat and we could solve something within an hour. Now, we have to open an SR and wait for somebody to get back to us.

Positive

We previously used an EMC product, however, I don't remember what it was called. It might have been Virtual Gateway or something like that. We use that as a front end to VMAX storage. There was newer technology which was why we made the switch.

We have the solution deployed in two locations, in our production data center, and in another disaster recovery data center. We're syncing data between the two and it's used by all our employees. That's where their personal drives are, along with corporate drives and departmental drives, that are off this storage as well.

There are three of us that maintain the solution. It's not a lot of work once it's all set up and running.

We have seen a return on investment in terms of the amount of storage that we have. There are a lot of things watching it, it's very helpful.

I'm not really involved with the pricing. 

Our company is a customer.

We're not using it in the cloud. We are starting to get into the cloud a little bit in our business. We're heavily using it for the NFS and SMB shares.

I'm not sure whether it reduced our risk or not.

We just recently upgraded our Isilon nodes to the new PowerScale nodes.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'd advise other users that it is cost-competitive. There are other solutions out there. This has an all-flash option as well. If you need the speed without the old flash, that's available as well. However, we have hybrid models of it.

We have to deal with a lot of data, be able to get it across to and from different locations, and be able to store it. We use this solution for these purposes.

Overall, Dell PowerScale (Isilon) has made the management of the data and networks easier. Because we are using the same solution for multiple platforms, our personnel have become more efficient.

The fact that we were able to set it up, use it, and, for the most part, didn't have to worry about it after we had it set up has been valuable.

PowerScale's cybersecurity, including ransom protection, is very good. We've never had an issue with it.

This solution has helped free up employees to focus on other business priorities.

Data storage performance needs to be improved.

We've been using this solution for several years.

It's been very stable.

I would give technical support a ten out of ten. We generally don't need a lot of technical support unless something breaks.

Positive

We previously used another Dell product, and we switched because it became outdated.

Deployment usually takes about three to four months. We implemented it one network at a time.

Maintenance-wise, it requires standard stinging and patching to ensure that security is followed.

We haven't lost any data, and that's probably the biggest return on investment, being able to maintain data integrity.

A technical solution has to meet the requirements, and you have to know what you need in order to figure out what tool is going to best work for that.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is a good product. It does the job, and it takes care of the data. I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We use this solution for the primary file storage for our organization for both the government and health department of Nova Scotia. We use the data domain for backup along with Isilon for our file storage.

This solution offers flexibility in supporting various data workloads and is very easy to work with. It is our go-to solution for all data storage. It is stable, it runs in the background and our users are barely aware that it exists. It operates seamlessly and this is the biggest benefit for our business. 

PowerScale has made it extremely easy to scale file data across our organization. We have two implementations of Isilon. One is a replica of the other. When scaling, we add nodes to each location and expand the cluster. The process is straightforward.

We have eliminated the need for any silos in our data center using this solution. It has also freed up our employees' time to focus on the other business priorities because it is easy to manage and add nodes when necessary. Replication works seamlessly. We are able to meet all of our auditors and governance requirements.

The way it scales easily, is easy to use and its security are the most valuable features. 

It would be nice to see tools like Superna Eyeglass built into PowerScale.

I have been using this solution for ten years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is an easy solution to scale. 

The solution's service and technical support are excellent. I would rate them a ten out of ten. 

Positive

Many years ago, before Dell, we used a solution for file sharing and office servers. We moved to storage area networks, and the transition to Dell seemed like the right move. 

The initial setup was straightforward. We did receive some assistance from Dell for the setup and they continue to assist us with maintenance on a regular basis.

A reseller assisted us with the implementation. They were excellent. To deploy this solution, we did not require more than our existing operational staff. These three team members take care of storage and backup.

Our biggest ROI in using this solution is the ease and centralization of management. This has freed up team members to focus on other tasks in the data center.

The pricing for this solution is reasonable. 

We evaluated a lot of other alternatives and this solution came out on top. 

I would recommend this solution to others. 

I would rate it a ten out ten. 

We use this solution to manage large data sets. It makes it easy for us to consolidate data storage and multiple applications into a single platform for easier manageability. This means we only need to manage a minimal number of clusters. 

The solution is very flexible in supporting various data workloads while keeping them protected. It scales well with different performance node types. In terms of data protection, it replicates easily with the replication features of SyncIQ. 

We have multiple clusters across two data centers and have two main teams; our enterprise storage services team, and our HPC team who recently purchased a bunch of capacity from Iceland.

When it comes to PowerScale Cybersecurity and ransomware protection, we use a third-party solution called Superna. It is still important to us that PowerScale helps secure our data from cyber attacks. An attack can happen very quickly and be very damaging. Large data sets are difficult to protect, replicate and recover.  

Using this solution, provisioning is a lot easier because we have large capacity clusters and can easily provide storage space to users as needed. We realized the benefits of this solution shortly after deployment. The management of the solution is very easy. 

This solution has had a positive effect on our company's storage efficiency. We are able to add capacity as needed in order to scale.

The ease of use of this solution has been the most valuable aspect as well as the SyncIQ and snapshot features. 

It assists with eliminating storage silos because it provides SMB and NFS protocols. PowerScale has also helped free up our employee's time to focus on other business priorities. 

I'd like to see more Iceland products in the cloud so that we can port our data into different environments if needed. I would also like to see a virtual appliance or software-defined Iceland product.

Version upgrades and patches take a long time to complete. This could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for twelve years. 

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution from a file data perspective. Scalability can be more difficult because you need three nodes minimum to start a cluster. You need a lot of other hardware to provide that service. This solution is not scalable in the cloud.

 I would rate the support for this solution a seven out of ten. The quality of support depends on the agent you deal with. 

Neutral

We have used other solutions but Iceland is the storage platform of choice for the large data sets that we have. We have a very strong relationship with Dell and their support is very good so we were very comfortable choosing Iceland.

The initial setup is straightforward. Dell came in to install the solution and update the operating systems. After that, some administration and management tasks needed to be completed, and then the setup was complete. 

Pricing for this solution is reasonable. 

This solution scales very easily. You just need to be aware of how much you scale as this can complicate the management of the solution. Scaling requires a strategy. 

PowerScale is easy to manage but more difficult to maintain. This is because it is a multiple node environment and the larger you get, the longer it takes. There are more risks when you make a change.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We used it originally for archiving our video storage, and then we expanded it to include user shares. All of our unstructured data has been moved to PowerScale.

We have now expanded the OneFS to start to use Local S3 Buckets, that use the same API setup as Amazon, but lets us host the data onsite.

In addition we added Power Protect Data Manager that is allowed to backup the Shares and stores, allowing us to have a backup of everything on another location.

We moved our shares over. Now, instead of taking up a large amount of space on a virtual machine, our shares take it up on one appliance. The load on that virtual machine is much less and it makes it easy to future-proof it, because now we don't have to move it again in the next migration of servers.

We have saved about 30 percent on storage with it. And as we grow, we get more space, meaning the efficiency improves each time we add a node. We went from 75 percent efficiency to 82.5 percent efficiency when we expanded.

The solution provides us with the flexibility to add the right tier of storage at the right time for data that resides at the edge, core, or cloud. That really is nice. We did one use case where we put it out at the edge, and it was nice to have the Isilon at the edge. It really helped improve things. It helped the storage of the cameras, and it helped get the data back to the core in a reasonable time. It allowed us to go from the edge to the core and then up to the cloud, instead of trying to go from the very edge to cloud.

PowerScale also allows us to manage storage without managing RAID groups or migrating volumes between controllers. It simplifies the storage. It allows us to see everything as one large volume instead of having multiple volumes all over the place.

And when it comes to the business value of our data, it allows us to see what's being used and how it's being used, and we can do so much more quickly and efficiently. As a result, we can better evaluate how we're storing the data.

It has also helped us to reduce data silos. We used to have four video servers out there, all storing data. On the home farm, now, we're down to one server storing data in one location, and that includes all the user shares. 

All our data is in one place and that has increased performance. We could never afford to say, "Let's have this information on solid-state," and allowed the OneFS to decide, based on usage, of where it would be stored: on a fast drive or on a slow drive. It automatically does that in the background for us, instead of our having to manually move it and then have the user change where they get the information from.

In addition, it has simplified management by consolidating our workloads. It's all done in the same portal now. And while it hasn't reduced our number of storage admins, it has definitely reduced the time we spend looking at it, so we can focus on other efforts. It saves me about five hours a week.

Another benefit is that it allows us to focus on the data rather than where it's stored. Now, we don't have to worry about moving it around from place to place to get efficiencies out of the data. We just have it all in one place. The single interface, the SmartPools policy, decides where it needs to reside.

The single pane of glass for both IT and for the end-user is a valuable feature. On the IT side, I can actually control where things are stored, whether something is stored on solid-state drives or spinning drives, as well as the access users get. But the end-user doesn't distinguish the difference between a file and its folder; the end-user doesn't have to see the difference.

The single pane of glass makes it very easy to use and very easy to understand. We started at 100 terabytes and we moved to 250 and it still feels like the exact same system and we're able to move data as needed. There are no performance issues based on how large the storage is.

Adding a node is as simple as racking and stacking the items. It takes about two to three hours to put it into the rack. Once you have it all wired up, it takes you about an hour or 90 minutes with Dell, just to configure things and make sure it's all working. Then you just redefine your policy for where you want the items stored. We just expanded to include the solid-state, a full F200 node, and we just redefined where we wanted those files stored, whether on the super-fast solid-state or on the slow archival mode. Then, overnight, it ran that script and moved all the files around to help increase performance.

We also use the CloudIQ feature to monitor performance and other data remotely. It gives us better insight into where the data's stored and the access times involved. It gives me a better understanding of what's really being accessed and helps me decide what I can move to slower drives first, and what needs to stay in the front-end and remain very fast.

There aren't many templates still coming out for it. They need to provide templates so we can copy and paste what we've done in the past to future, new things.

The refresh of the interface with version 9.3 did help a lot of the things. They are at least improving it.

I have been using Dell EMC PowerScale for about a year and a half.

It's very stable. It's one of the first solutions that I feel comfortable working with during the business day, while people are using it, knowing that I can change things and it's not going to take the system down.

One of the things I like the most about it is the fact that we can scale out now. If we need more space, we order more nodes and it just changes the file structure; it just expands. There are no more individual drives, new arrays, moving things around. It'll just be there.

The future-proofing of what we're doing is a great thing too, because in five years when we're ready to replace that node, just due to its age, we can put the new one in and tell it to archive the old unit. It will move all the files over, in the background, and then we will just remove the old unit. There's no more having to tell users that, "Oh, this whole share is moving and all this stuff is getting done."

The technical support has been really good. It's pretty intuitive to put a ticket in, both through their email and through the calling system. It's usually pretty seamless to get to talk to somebody to actually resolve the issue.

Before PowerScale it was just MD Storage Arrays, the standard, and the LUNs that you'd have anywhere. We eliminated that with this. We originally started with PowerScale for our video system. We were looking for a better system, in the long-term, to store our archival video and process it. We looked at unstructured data solutions and picked PowerScale for that and for the future-proofing.

Also, because we are a large Dell EMC shop, it allowed us to keep it all on the same platform. In looking to do things on a larger scale, it allowed us future compatibility, much more easily. Its ability to meet unpredictable future storage needs looks great. It feels like a great solution and it was the right direction for us.

The first setup was pretty complex and a little different to do. Once we had the core system set up, the next deployment was much easier. The complexity came from changing our thought process, internally, regarding how we store files and how unstructured data really works, and then, how to efficiently use this.

Our deployment took about a week. We did a slow move-over, and we still continue to move anything we find over to it.

In terms of administration of the solution, for the most part it's just me who does a lot of the core work. All the users on the farm are using the system now, meaning about 350 people are accessing the data on the Isilon.

We used the reseller, Dell EMC, for the deployment, and it was a great experience. They were there to help us and make sure we understood where we were going and what we were doing.

The fact that, with PowerScale, we could start with a few nodes and scale very large made it very cost-efficient for us. It allowed us to start out, see what it can do, and evaluate the product before we actually did a larger investment in it. We invested into it again three months later.

I'd like to say we have seen ROI because we're feeling like we're really starting to store data better and understand what's going on, more than we did a year-and-a-half ago.

It's one of those situations where you have to find the right price for you. When we talked to the reseller, we were able to negotiate the right price for what we needed.

We looked at HPE and IBM.

I liked the interface of the PowerScale much better than the other ones. It was more intuitive. I logged on and could almost get to work with it right away. I felt like I could hop on and just start using it, whereas with the other ones I felt that there was a larger, steeper learning curve.

Dell EMC keeps adding more features to the solution's OneFS operating system. The last addition was its CloudPools and that allows us to do backups to the public cloud for the data that we want to keep but don't even need on-prem anymore. It turned the system into a never-ending resource. We can now decide what we want to keep, long-term, without having to expand our storage system.

PowerScale is one of those things that will grow in your environment. Once you start it with one thing, you'll learn that it can do much more, very quickly. That's a great thing about starting small with it, you can expand very quickly later on.

Our motivation for investing in PowerScale was to provide scalable, redundant, and reliable storage for our film production pipelines. We're an animation film studio and our live data sits on it. Firstly, we were up to our capacity. We're a growing startup and we need to be able to scale into the future. The second reason we went with it is that we've got a relatively small IT team, so we needed equipment that's reliable and easy to manage. 

It's really set-and-forget. We went from our IT team from managing data, moving data, and deleting data on a day-to-day basis, over the course of six months to the point where, for the last 12 months, they have not had to touch it. It's really reliable, and the reporting heads off any issues that you might have.

In terms of the performance improvement, we've described it as moving from a single lane highway into a multi-lane freeway. We've still got speed limits in the individual end-user environment, but now more people can move at the same time without it throttling our system. One result is that on a local test we went from 61,000 milliseconds down to 5,500 on the PowerScale, which is a massive improvement. We have been able to leverage the features of the PowerScale to optimize that down, and that was while the pandemic was on, and we were moving from 100 percent on-premises, to 100 percent off-premises.

It has made a massive difference to how our IT team's time is utilized. It has pretty much been able to move from an operational focus, day-to-day, just keeping systems up in the environment, to now having an optimization mindset where they're looking to add new features to our production pipeline. They've got the time now to do that, whereas managing our storage before was a full-time job for them. It has saved me from having to hire one person over the last six months, and our IT team has gotten about 40 percent of its time back. It's a massive difference. We still have the same number of administrators as we had before, but it has allowed them to move from an operational focus to an optimization focus.

Before, we had disparate storage systems that we were managing separately, and now all our production storage sits within the one environment.

PowerScale allows us to manage storage without managing RAID groups or migrating volumes between controllers. It has really simplified things. We're not having to worry about the underlying infrastructure. That takes care of itself. We just worry about the data. It's really easy for deploying and managing storage at the petabyte scale.

It also provides the flexibility to add the right tier of storage at the right time for data that resides at the edge, core, or cloud and that is one of the reasons we chose the solution. We haven't leveraged that as yet, we're not at that point, but we definitely invested in this asset for that reason. Currently, we can build two concurrent projects, but we expect, by leveraging that technology, that we will be able to get to six concurrent projects, which will have a huge business impact.

Another benefit is that it has allowed us to better understand our storage usage and cost over a project's duration, and that's helping us to better plan and quote for future productions.

We have started to leverage the data from InsightIQ to be informed when quoting for future productions, and we're getting a better understanding of our usage and costs over a project duration.

We've had Dell EMC PowerScale for 12 months.

We haven't had any issues at all. In fact, every day we say, "Oh my God, this is so amazing."

We haven't added a node to the solution yet. We plan on putting in A200s, as we move between productions in our franchise. It's a new product for our team, so we're still trying to optimize what we already have. We haven't really looked to use any of their new features.

We haven't scaled the solution yet, but the reason that we could convince the board to allow us to invest in this technology was the scalability. One of the next challenges that we're going to have is how to store our historical project data. We need a solution that is going to be cost-effective, yet the data will still have to be readily accessible to our current production pipeline. The PowerScale and file pool policies will enable us to utilize the archiving, so that will likely be the next way we scale.

We have found the post-installation support to be absolutely fantastic. They have helped us leverage the advanced features and that has hugely improved the performance of our custom applications that we have hosted on the PowerScale. Their tech support is great.

We didn't have a previous solution. We knew we needed a solution because every four to six weeks we were buying a new storage system. We had to make a decision on what to invest in. We reached out to our IT provider, Davichi, and they introduced us to the Dell EMC PowerScale. When we read up on it, it seemed to meet all our needs.

As a startup, we needed a technology that we could scale with. Secondly, we've got a small IT team, so the equipment needed to be reliable, easy to use, and there had to be additional support available when we needed it. We were also looking for additional features and options that we could leverage, like cross-platform support for SMB and NFS, because we were after a high-speed server and workstation access, because that was one of our pain points.

Dell EMC were incredibly attentive through the deployment process. They met us on site and they took the time to understand our current environment, our current challenges, and they worked with us to make sure that we bought the licenses that were going to meet our needs for today. They also helped us plan for the licensing that we'll need into the future.

They met with our tech team and spent a day with us mapping out what our requirements were, looking at our environment, and making sure that we had the right networking, so that our foundation was right when we put it in. They physically installed the equipment and they continued to work with us over the next two weeks, just to make sure that everything was right. We put the PowerScale in when we were in production, at the end of a film, and we had no downtime at all. That was a massive concern for us, doing it while we were live in production, but they helped us move all the data across to the new system and we had no downtime.

We have a local IT company that introduced us to Dell EMC and this product, and they were also a part of that scoping session. They're called Davichi Computer Services, and they're amazing. We ring if we have a problem, and within a few hours someone's out there. If they can't solve it over the phone or can't remote-in, they'll come on site and help us solve the problem. Fortunately, since we put this gear in, we haven't had many issues. But even as we were learning to understand this gear they worked hand-in-hand with our IT team.

On our side, the deployment required one person, our IT manager. Everyone uses it, as an end-user, in our organization because all the data for our film production pipeline lives on it.

The total cost of ownership has been definitely worthwhile, hands-down. I had forecast the need to hire another administrator for our tech team and I haven't needed to do that.

In addition, our IT team is now concentrating on things that help our business grow and help our business make money and help our team achieve a better end product; things we couldn't have done if we'd invested in other products.

In addition to the standard fees, we had to buy switches. In the scoping sessions, when Dell EMC came on site, we identified what the capacity was in our server room to put the product in. The only thing that we didn't scope for was that we needed an additional UPS because the UPS that we had couldn't hold the load.

The only drawback for us is that it's a large upfront investment. This was a huge decision for a startup company to make. It took a bit for us to get over the line on it, but we have not regretted it.

We looked at another Dell EMC solution. The reasons we went with PowerScale were the simplicity of managing it, the faster write performance than RAID systems, the data access optimization features, and, of course, it's fully redundant, with high performance, and it's scalable.

Make sure you take the time to understand your current environment and what additional infrastructure you might need to support the device. All that planning made it a seamless implementation for us. Sometimes that part of the process felt like it was taking forever, but it ended up being well worthwhile.

It's allowed us to consolidate everything in one, large, redundant volume, but we expected that. Nothing has gone wrong. Everything's been exactly what we expected, which is wonderful.

I imagine that as time goes it will become more valuable, particularly as we get into a world where we're managing archive data. And we are looking to explore the cloud options as well.

I would rate PowerScale at nine out of 10 because of the greatly increased performance, the capacity, reliability, and the improved maintainability of our storage.

We are using it for storage of video files, with casual access to them. We needed as much storage as we could get for the best price. If you are looking for a hybrid type of situation, when you want low latency for transactional things, and higher-latency storage for archival things, you can get the hybrid nodes.

Each of our two clusters has the same disk sizes, etc. We did that for interchangeability, in case we wanted to move shelves between the clusters. They act independently, but they replicate between the two. We love the system. That's why we continue to upgrade and buy it.

The low latency, the high-capacity connections that we have with the nodes, and the ability to add as needed to a particular system, are all important features for us.

It also handles data distribution among the nodes internally. You really don't have to do anything, so management is easy. If you're someone who really wants to get granular and know where every bit or byte is going, maybe it's not for you because I don't know if you can get that granular.

We have over a petabyte of storage and we've sliced it up. You can't really call them "shares" because it's not really like an NFS mount or CIFS share. But we've sliced it up and the policies and auditing on a particular system are, in fact, too much data. Anytime a file change or any system change happens on it, it records it and we ingest that into a SIEM. We can crunch it so we know who is changing what file at what time. That gives us auditing capabilities.

The policy-based management that we have, for who accesses what shares, is relatively simple to set up and manage. It's almost like managing an Active Directory file share.

There are also the policies that you set up on replication and purging files, and policies for something called WORM. That's a "write once, read many," where you can't overwrite certain files or certain data. It puts them in a "protected mode" where it becomes very difficult for someone to accidentally delete. We use that for certain files or certain directories, because we're dealing with video and some video has to be protected for chain-of-custody purposes. The WORM feature works great.

The OneFS file system is very simple and has an astronomical number of features that allow us to get very granular with permissions, policies, and archiving of data. It handles everything for you. It's one of the easiest storage solutions that we've ever implemented in the 12 years I've been working in this organization.

I also love the snapshot functionality. It's pretty much what everyone does in backup. It's a backup of your system, but it lets you set the frequency of the snapshots. That's very important to us because we take so many snapshots. That means we can recover up to six months back, if somebody makes a file change or deletes a file. It's like a versioning type of function. It probably isn't really special. A lot of backup software has it. But the snapshot functionality is what we utilize the most within the OneFS file system. In theory, you don't really have to back up your systems if you're taking snapshots.

The only problem with the WORM (write once, read many) feature is it does take up more space than if you just wrote a file, because it writes stuff twice. But it works for us for chain-of-custody scenarios, and it's built into the file system itself.

Also, on the PowerScale system, because of the magic that it does "under the hood," it is very difficult to find out within the system where all your storage is going. That's a little bit of a ding that we have on it. It does so much magic in order to protect itself from drive failures or multiple drive failures, that it automatically handles the provisioning and storage of your data. But by doing that, finding out why a file of a certain size, or a directory of a certain size, is using more storage than is being reported in InsightIQ, is very difficult to discern. It's the secret sauce of protecting your data and that makes it a little disconcerting for someone who is used to seeing if a directory is using 5 MB of space. So if you have a directory using a terabyte of space, it might be using a little bit more because of the way that the system handles data protection. That is something you have to get used to.

Also, a lot of people are not used to the tagging or the description in the InsightIQ application. We're used to using the normal nomenclature of terabyte, petabyte, etc. They utilize TB byte and PB byte. So you have to understand the difference when InsightIQ is telling you how much storage you have. It's different than what we're used to. It uses base-2 and the world is used to base-10. Discerning how much storage you actually have, from the information in InsightIQ, takes a little bit of math, but it's not very difficult. I wish they had an interface in there where you could click and it would report in the way the industry is used to, which is in terabytes and petabytes. It's nothing major, just something you have to get used to when you're looking at it.

We have two clusters. We purchased our first cluster about seven or eight years ago. We've refreshed that particular cluster, where we traded in the old one and brought a whole new cluster. In the midst of that purchase, we also bought a second cluster where we replicate some files between the two. We just refreshed and upgraded that second cluster, which was probably about five or six years old, and bought a whole new set of A200 nodes for it, so the shelf sizes are the same.

We've had some bumps and bruises when buying new nodes and adding them to the cluster, but I don't think it was the technology that we really had the problems with. It was, unfortunately, Dell EMC support, where we got a couple of Dell EMC engineers who weren't as familiar with the system as we'd like. Once we kicked it up the chain, and we had an engineer that was more versed, they fixed the problem relatively fast.

When we had the first iteration of PowerScale seven years ago, we added nodes to that. This was how that process went: The node came in, it was already populated with drives, you slapped it in, put it into the rack, cabled it up to the networking, and put the networking on the same VLAN, the network backend configuration. Then, you went into the configuration manager, the OneFS file system and you told it about the node. You said, "I have a node that I want to join to the cluster." It brought the cluster in and, for lack of a better term, formatted it, added it to the array, and it was there. The amount of time it took to cable up and join that node was about two hours. Once it's there, the storage just expands.

In theory, and what we expected with the newer systems when adding nodes—and this is the way it does work, once they figured out the problem that they were having—was that it would be the same scenario. You rack the system. If you get the networking done right, which is really easy—you just drop it on—it handles a lot of the internal networking within the cluster itself, but you need to put it on the same external VLAN. If you do that right, the OneFS file system just finds it. You add it, and it just assimilates it into the cluster. Once the networking is done, it should take under an hour for it to get assimilated into the node and for the storage to become available.

Most of the problems we had were when we were adding on. We really haven't had any problems after it was up and running. When it's up and running, it's rock-solid. We never really get failures other than drives failing, because all SATA drives fail. But you just pull out a drive and you slap another one in.

We were using it for video storage and we were pretty impressed with its scale-up and scale-out abilities. We are always looking at the ability of a platform for scaling up and scaling out, especially because it's file storage. This was the best thing on the block that was out there.

In recent months, their backend technical support has waned a little bit. They need to address the first-line technical support. I used to have a lot of confidence in Dell EMC technical support, but since COVID—and maybe it's the COVID situation—the technical support has fallen short a little bit. We've run into some problems with them.

They stand behind their product. The support that I get from my support group and my enterprise management team is phenomenal. When there's a problem, they address it. It may take them a little bit of time, but they own up to it.

But calling in and getting that first-line technical support needs to be addressed. It's been a little bit of a "hunt and peck" when you have issues, as opposed to just coming up with the actual solution to a problem. That's only been the case in about the last nine months or a year. I continue with Dell EMC because when there's an issue, they back it up and they make it right.

It's one of the easiest things to configure. It's pretty much set-it-and-forget-it.

Initially, because in the first system that we had seven years ago the drive space was so small—I think they were 4 TB drives—there were a lot of shelves. We had over a petabyte of storage, so it was a lot of shelves. The installation, physically, was what took a really long time.

Now, the drive size is much bigger and the density per shelf is much greater. The actual shelf count is a lot smaller, so the physical racking is a lot easier. When we switched over to the new A200 nodes, we went from four nodes to one, four shelves to one shelf, when we did the conversion.

With the initial install, it has to format all the drives and that can take some time. It was a long time ago so I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I believe it took us a day or two to format all the drives. But we had 12 shelves. After that we were fine. 

But when you add on, it just brings them up and formats them into the array, relatively quickly. But the initial one, depending on how many singles you have, can take hours, and up into a day, to format everything.

The second installation that we did was a lot quicker. We stood it up, had those initial problems adding the nodes, but then we had to move it because we had to move data centers. When we moved it, it took less than half a day. We actually had to shut it down to move it out of a data center into another data center. We carried it over to the new data center, rack mounted it, fired the thing up, and it just took off like it hadn't even been moved. It handled a good "power-down" situation with no issues.

It was done with two guys from Dell EMC and one of my system engineers. The network guy did some backend configurations. The two guys from Dell EMC came because they were physically mounting all that stuff. When we added the second one they sent two guys, but one guy pretty much just sat around and did nothing while the other did the hands-on-the-keyboard stuff. I had a system guy down there to help with how we wanted it configured. But it's relatively simple.

Overall, the first deployment was phenomenal. Everything worked out great. The training, what they conveyed to us and walked us through, that was phenomenal. The second deployment, on the second array—same thing, when we were running with the older nodes.

Then when we did the transition where we swapped out to the A200 nodes. Once again, phenomenal, everything worked out great. When we got the A200 nodes for the second cluster and upgraded them, the installation of that went fine.

When we started adding shelves, that's when the technical support fell on its face because the individuals that were working with it were not well-versed enough. I guess they assumed—and it's how it should be—that when you add a node, it's just rack it and stack it and then turn it on. But it didn't go that easily. There was some low-level engineering trick that you needed to know about, and these particular individuals didn't know about it. They do now, because we had to escalate it. The escalation was a little frustrating because it took about two days to get to the right person. But that right person knew the answer in five minutes.

We did an analysis of using cloud storage and on-prem storage. We did a comparison of the total cost of ownership between the two. Every time we have done it, the cost of onsite storage using the PowerScale system is fractions of a penny, per gigabyte, compared to cloud storage. There are no access fees or access charges like you get with cloud storage. If you want to utilize cloud storage, there are retrieval costs sometimes. I know there are different levels of cloud storage where you can archive and then pull up, but it takes about a day to get them to pull that stuff out of archive, and then you can access it. But there's also those access charges. You don't get that with the PowerScale system.

We're at the A200 version, which is more for online archiving. It's storage-based, but they're called archive nodes. They're all SATA spinning disks. If you need a lot of storage at a cheap, economical price, and really high-speed, if you're not doing transactional stuff, they have these archive nodes. The PowerScale A200 is more like an online archival system where the nodes are there but you're actively addressing them. It stores them on spinning disk so you get tons of storage for a good price.

Networking can get a little confusing. The big thing is to make sure you carve out your VLANs to this particular system. Put a lot of thought into the network aspect of it. Don't just slap it into your server network. Carve out an isolated network for your storage subsystems and make sure they have high-speed paths back to wherever you're going to be accessing it from. Don't cheap out on that because this system scales out and scales up. If you start cheaping out on the network part of it, you're not going to be happy with your access to it. The biggest thing is to configure the networking right and give it the unabridged paths that it needs to realize the low-latency, scale-out aspect of the system itself. You can jam yourself up if you neglect the networking aspect of it.

The A2000 system they have now, which we didn't even look into, is more of a non-active archival type system. They also have these hybrid systems where you would have staging areas where you could store on spinning disks and tier. Your storage becomes a tiered storage infrastructure where you have spinning and flash storage. You can put your high access, low latency stuff on your flash storage, and your archival, higher latency stuff, on the spinning disks of the hybrid nodes. We were looking at that, but we're not using this particular system as a low latency, production-type system. 

They also have the all-flash arrays, which is where you're getting massive amounts of throughput but it's just expensive, obviously, because it's flash. It's a lot more money. We weren't looking into that because we did not need speed. We were just looking for storage options. We have a different Dell EMC product that we use for our day-to-day, low latency, server-based storage. That's where our block storage is. Our file storage is what we use the PowerScale for. We didn't want to go to the all-flash array nodes. They're not cheap and we already had a solution in place for that.

Overall, the hardware itself, and the OneFs file system, are the best selling points, combined with the delivery and the installation. That's why I continue to buy Dell EMC.

• Research data
• Departmental file shares
• Data centre storage: NFS

We have two data centres in our university. We have Cisco UCS, Pure Storage, and are heavily virtualised with VMware. PowerScale is our unstructured data storage platform. It provides scaled-out storage and our high-level NFS across applications. It also provides all the storage for our researchers and business areas, as well as students, on the network.

With the exception of block workloads, which is primarily VMware, Oracle Databases, etc., everything else it is on PowerScale. It definitely has allowed us to consolidate the ease of management.

With the quotas having fewer large pools of storage in the data centres, we typically only have one or two Isilon clusters. That gives us the ability to multi-tenant or allocate data to different applications and isolate workloads. It is very efficient when managing that volume of storage. We are not tuning it every day or week. The only time that we are really doing anything with it is if we're planning an upgrade of some sort several times a year. Outside of that, it just does what we want it to do. 

We automate the vast majority of the things that we do on the Isilon clusters: provisioning of storage, allocation of storage, management of quotas wrapped into tens of thousands of students, and managing permissions. That's the level of support they have for their built-in API's, which is probably a huge game changer for us in the way that we manage the storage. It makes it far more efficient inside of PowerScale.

Compared to doing it manually, what we have been able to automate using the API is saving us at least tens of hours a month versus when we used to get service requests. We have even been able to delegate out to different areas. If we have an area with whom we do file shares, we delegate out the ability for them to create new shares and manage their permissions themselves. 

The solution allows us to manage storage without managing RAID groups or migrating volumes between controllers. We see this in the big refresh that we did earlier in the year. After you have clicked the "Join" button and joined, you go to the old node and click remove, then wait for it to finish. You don't have to configure anything when you add new node types, they are automatically configured. You can tune them and override things if you want, but there is no configuration required.

PowerScale has enabled us to maximise the business value of our data and gain new insights from it. It gives us the ability to have our data stored and presented via whatever protocol is required. Now, we can look at all these different protocols without having to move or duplicate the data.

The solution allows you to focus on data management, rather than storage management, so you can get the most out of your data. We looked at the types of data that we have on the cluster, then we just target it based on the requirements. We don't have to worry about building up different capabilities, arrays, RAID types, etc. We just have the nodes, and through simple policy, can manage it as data rather than managing it as different RAID pools and capacity levels. If someone needs some data storage, then we ask what their requirements are and we just target based on that. Therefore, we manage it as a workload rather than a disk type. 

Their SmartQuotas feature is probably the thing that we use most heavily and consistently. Because it is a scaled-out NAS product, you end up with clusters of multiple petabytes. This allows you to have quotas for people and present smaller chunks of storage to different users and applications, managing oversubscription very easily.

We use the policy-based file placement, so we have multiple pools of storage. We use the cold space file placement to place, e.g., less-frequently accessed or replicated data onto archive nodes and more high-performance research data onto our high-performance nodes. It is very easy to use and very straightforward.

The node pools give us the ability to non-disruptively replace the whole cluster. With our most recent Gen6 upgrade, we moved from the Gen5 nodes to the Gen6 nodes. In January this year, we ended up doing a full replacement of every component in the system. That included storage nodes, switching, etc., which we were able to replace non-disruptively and without any outages to our end users or applications.

We use the InsightIQ product, which they are now deprecating and moving into CloudIQ. The InsightIQ product has been very good. You can break down the cost performance right down to protocol latency by workstation. When we infrequently do have issues, we use it to track down those issues. It also has a very good file system reporting.

For maximising storage utilisation, it is very good. As you add more nodes in a cluster, you typically get more effective utilisation. It is incredibly flexible in that you can select different protection levels for different files, not necessarily for file systems or blocks of storage, but actually on a per file basis. Occasionally, if we have some data that is not important, we might need to use a lower protection. For other data that is important, we can increase that. However, we have been very happy with the utilisation.

Dell EMC keeps adding more features to the solution’s OneFS operating system. In terms of group work, we have used it for about 13 years. The core feature set rollup has largely stayed the same over that time. It has been greatly improved over that time as well. So, it has always been that storage NFS sandbox, and they've broadened their scope for NFS v4, SMB3 Multi-channel, etc. They are always bringing up newer protocols, such as S3. Typically, those new features, such as S3, don't require new licensing. They are just included, which is nice.

Over the years, the improvements to existing protocols have been important to us. When we first started using it, they were running open source sandbox for their SMB implementation under the covers and they used a built-in NFS server in a free VSD. Whereas, with the new implementations that they introduced for OneFS 7 have had huge increases in performance and been very good, though there's not necessarily any new features. We even use HDFS on the Isilons as well at the moment. The continued improvement has been really beneficial.

It is incredibly easy to use the solution for deploying and managing storage at the petabyte scale. With CIFS and IBM Spectrum Scale, there just isn't the horizontal concern. I couldn't think of an easier way to deploy Petabyte NAS storage than using Dell EMC PowerScale.

The replication could lend itself to some improvement around encryption in transit and managing the racing of large volumes of data. The process of file over and file back can be tedious. Hopefully, you never end up going into a DR. If you do go into a DR, you know the data is there on the remote site. However, in terms of the process of setting up the replicates and filing them back, that is just very tedious and could definitely do with some improvement. 

There is a lack of object support, which they have only just rectified. 

About seven years.

The stability has been exceptional. I've been very happy with the stability of it. In the last six years, we have pretty much been disruption free. Prior to that, we have had one or two issues, which we worked with their support to fix. 

We had a major refresh at the start of the year when we replaced one petabyte at one site and a half a petabyte at another site. This completely replaced everything and took us about a month. It was finished with one staff member overseeing the process, moving the data and roping in one or two other staff at different times to help with the physical backing. 

They are quite heavy, so you always want to have two or three people involved. It has very minimal staff management required. For example, once the hardware is racked, it needs just one operator who joins the nodes, waiting for the data to move over. Internally, this is non-disruptive to the user. 

Firing up the old nodes, that is more of a management thing. 

Pretty much everyone touches the solution in some way or another. It has been a bit different right now with COVID-19, since a lot of people have been recently working remotely. In any given day, probably 12,000 people have been using it. That is just going by the number of active connections that we have from staff, students, and researchers at any time.

We can't see anyway that we would ever reach the limits of the product in terms of scalability and our workloads. We have no concerns around scalability. 

It has a back-end network that it's managing to get switches with enough ports to plug the nodes in, if you want to go big. That is the most complicated part, not the actual management of storage. As you add more nodes, that management overhead remains largely the same. 

For larger scalability, I would be very comfortable with it. We would just have to do some good site planning to ensure that we have enough room for it.

Our usage is pretty extensive. It touches on almost every area of our organization. With the introduction object and support for Red Hat OpenShift, which they're releasing in OneFS 9.0, we are very keen to explore and extend the usage in those areas. That is part of the reason why we are upgrading our test cluster on OneFS 9.0 to specifically evaluate use with Red Hat OpenShift and Kubernetes in clouds. It definitely has a very strong place now in the data centre, and we don't see it going away anytime soon, as we see more workloads going onto it.

The support has been mixed. If you get through to the right engineers, you can get problems resolved incredibly quickly. If you don't, you can go around in circles for a long time. We do typically have to escalate support tickets through account managers to get them positioned correctly. However, once that happens, issues are resolved pretty quickly and we're generally happy. 

The technical support is average. There are certainly not the best that we have ever dealt with, but far from the worst ones. I would not recommend the product based on their tech support alone. 

Going back 13 years prior, we used to have a lot of Microsoft and Linux-based file servers all over the place. They were all siloed with a lot of wasted capacity. Consolidating all those down into a small handful of Isilon clusters has dramatically reduced the amount of silos that we have in the organization. In terms of reducing waste from having storage stuck in one silo or isolated area, it has made a huge improvement.

We have previously used IBM Spectrum, and I don't think you can buy anymore. Briefly, eight years ago, we moved a large portion of the workload off Isilon onto Spectrum. That was the biggest regret that I have had in my career. We couldn't get back on the Isilon fast enough. It was a commercial decision to move away from Isilon, which wasn't the cheapest. However, it was far more mature than the IBM product. Spectrum cost us so much that what we saved in capital expenditure we then lost in productivity, overhead, and maintenance. It was just a disaster. The support that we received from IBM was the worst support I have ever received. I've been in this industry and job for about 17 years now, and I have never had a worst support experience that I've had from IBM. It was a nightmare.

When we needed to get the issue with Spectrum fixed, there was no doubt about getting PowerScale. We couldn't get back on PowerScale fast enough. We just made that happen, and as soon as we did, all the fires were put out.

About 13 years ago, we were using six terabyte nodes back. Now, they're obviously a lot bigger than that. While scalability was definitely a key interest, the main driver for us was the ease of management to sort of consolidate all the separate file servers with their own operating systems and RAID arrays, and consolidating them into one pool of storage where we could allocate quotas and still manage capacity effectively, but centralize it and reduce waste. The ability to scale out was just icing on the cake, and definitely something we were very interested in. It's something we've utilised quite heavily over time, but the ease of management was the main driver.

The initial setup has always been straightforward. The process of creating a new cluster is largely the same now as it was 13 years ago. You get your first node, then connect the serial port to it. You answer about 10 questions, then you're ready to go. The rest of the nodes are added by clicking a button. It's incredibly easy to set up, and it says a lot that the process has been the same for about 13 years. There's not really much to improve or simplify, because it is already incredibly simple.

Assuming the hardware was racked, you could have the cluster setup and your minimum three nodes joined within half an hour to 45 minutes.

The process of adding a node is very straightforward: It is pressing a button. This can take five minutes, then the process is complete. Once you have added new nodes, you can then remove old nodes. 

Understand your workload. Make sure you size and cost it correctly for the amount of metadata you expect to see on it. Don't undersize your SSD.

For the whole replacement this year, I got one of our junior staff members, who had have never actually used our PowerScale, to do the whole upgrade process. I just pointed him in the right direction. Because it was very easy, he managed to do it without any issues.

We don't use any professional services. We always do it in-house. 

Two people are needed for racking hardware. Only one person is needed to deploy it, as that process is very straightforward.

The solution has simplified management by consolidating our workloads. Rather than managing all the different workloads on different storage arrays, Windows Servers, etc., we just have one place per data centre where we manage all their unstructured data, saving us time.

PowerScale has reduced the number of admins that we need. It has allowed our admins to focus on adding value through automating tasks and streamlining operations for our customers, rather than focusing on the day-to-day and tuning RAID profiles. We can use our APIs to automate workflows for customers and have quicker turnaround times.

The solution is expensive; it is not the cheapest solution out there. If you look at it from a total cost of ownership perspective, then it is a very compelling solution. However, if you're looking at just dollar per terabyte and not looking at the big picture, then you could be distracted by the price. It is not an amazing price, but it's pretty good. It is also very good when you consider the total cost of ownership and ease of management.

We added on a deduplication license. That is the only thing that we have added. That was a decision where it was cheaper for us to license the deduplication than it was to buy more storage, so we went with that approach. We just did an analysis and found this was the case.

We haven't really hit a workload or situation that we have had any issues catering for. Certainly with the huge number of different node types now, we could position any sort of performance from very cheap, deep archive through to high performance, random workloads. I feel like we could respond very quickly to any business requirement that came up assuming they had budget. Even if we didn't have budget, largely with the way our clusters are configured, we typically mix in high and low performance. We won't buy top of the line, high performance, but we will buy basic H500 nodes, which are a large amount of self-spinning disks. That is what we standardize for our high performance tier. 

13 years ago, it was called Isilon Systems. They were a start up in Seattle, while we are in Australia. We were importing the hardware directly. At that time, there was nothing really else that we were looking at. We were just caught up in revolutionising the way we would be managing one pool storage. Then, six to eight year ago, when we had that little stint on IBM Spectrum, we didn't go to market. We very heavily evaluated the IBM product and NetApp in cluster mode as an alternative. We did rule out NetApp from a management perspective as far too difficult to manage. The Spectrum product that we saw on paper and from our evaluation of loaned hardware seemed like it was going to be on par with Isilon. Little did we know the nightmare that would ensue from that. 

The biggest lesson that we learned was from moving away from it onto the IBM product. The maturity of a product is very directly correlated to the amount of time you spend managing it, as it is a very mature product. We have been using it for 13 years, and the core has a very solid, mature foundation that has been built over that time.

We have dealt with Nimble Storage in the past. I would recommend Nimble Storage based on their support (at that time), as they had exceptional support. However, Dell EMC support is no worse than Cisco or any of the other vendors that we have had to deal with, but it is nothing special.

Just don't underestimate how important a mature product is compared to something leading edge or new.

PowerScale's positioned primarily to receive the call within that data centre. We have PowerScale heavily centralized, both in our IT department and on our campuses. We don't really have any storage from PowerScale in the cloud or our edge because we have very good network connectivity. In terms of the right tiers of storage, the level of flexibility that we have for adding different types of storage with different characteristics to our existing cluster now is the best it's ever been in the 13 years that we've managed it. 

Between CloudIQ and DataIQ, they're replacing their legacy InsightIQ product. We haven't moved to CloudIQ yet to start looking at it.

Early on, since we have been using the solution for 13 years, if you added a new node type, then you would have to add three physical nodes to start a new pool and only end up with 66 percent utilisation on that storage pool. Whereas, in the Gen6 hardware, you can have more smaller nodes in one rackmount chassis. Now, you can add a new storage type and gain much better storage efficiency off the bat.

The S3 protocol specifically comes in OneFS 9.0. We have a test cluster for it, which we are in the process of upgrading to have a look at their S3 support. However, I haven't used it yet. Typically, we use something like MinIO, which is an open source object gateway, and put that in front of the PowerScale cluster.

On the archive side, we still have the A200 nodes. While you can go with the A2000s or go deeper than that, we can manage pretty much anything thrown our way by not going too extreme in our pools by positioning data effectively. I think it's very good.

I would rate the solution as a nine out of 10.