Dell PowerScale (Isilon) Reviews

We’re the world-leaders in webcam technology, content, and services. We do high-resolution imaging from cameras. We have millions of camera images a month coming into our network from our systems in the field. We store all of that image data, and then we edit those images into time-lapse movies.

We've had an 82 percent reduction in our systems administration resources.

One of the things we have also noticed is about a 20 percent reduction in our video processing time. Our video editors are able to work on editing natively, on the system, and that cuts down on a lot of time that was required to move data around. It helps their workflow. 

It's also giving us double the capacity in less space. We get about 26 times greater density, compared to our previous storage systems.

In addition, Dell EMC keeps adding new features and improving on existing ones. When upgrading from the old generation, the redundancy was restructured with the domains and different node schemes, giving us more fault tolerance.

In terms of flexibility, we have two different types of nodes, and we're able to change the performance on directories, depending on the usage. It allows us to manage the entire system without having to worry about specific LUNs. It literally takes me just a few minutes to configure something and apply it.

As we expand and have to add new things to our product line, we're able to scale very well, because we have visibility on our storage, our capacity, and our needs. It has definitely helped us from a business standpoint in that we don't have to be concerned about our storage environment. We always know where we stand.

PowerScale has also helped us to eliminate data silos. Everything is consolidated and, as a result, it has simplified how we manage things and how much time we spend administering the system. With all our data in one place, we don't have to manage different types of storage systems. Everything is just a single brand. We do have different nodes, but they all get administered the same way, so we don't have to relearn different things, such as how to manage the RAIDs, RAID groups, and different protocols.

The solution has definitely freed up a lot of time. We used to spend a lot of time on our previous system. PowerScale allows us to focus on data management rather than storage management and helps us get the most out of our data.

The most important things for us are the reliability and the ability to cut down on our system administration resources. It's very easy to manage, and we have very good visibility on how the storage system is being utilized. In addition to the reliability, it's very easy to work with and it's very fast. Its sustained throughput is probably 100 times faster than previous systems.

For maximizing storage utilization, PowerScale is great. When you write the data to it, it spreads it out to all the nodes, so you get all the performance from the entire pool.

In addition, managing storage at the petabyte scale is very easy if you go through the user interface. Everything is there. But if we want to do more complex things, we can use the CLI. Since we're very familiar with Unix/Linux CLI we feel comfortable making configurations changes through there.

Another thing we particularly like is the documentation available, and how you can self-troubleshoot a lot of things. I like to know why something does not work and Dell EMC provides extensive documentation with technical details of bugs or technical shortcomings.

There is room for improvement with the updates. It can take a significant amount of time to do a major OS update. However, even though it takes multiple reboots, the cluster stays up. If we want to apply a newer version of the OS, we have to roll back some of the patches so that we can upgrade. It requires a few reboots just to do that. The cluster doesn't come down, everything is still running, but it's time-consuming, at times.

We have been using PowerScale for over five years.

We have five nines of uptime, 99.999. We have almost no downtime with the system.

The scalability is great. You plug in a new node and data starts migrating over to spread out the load. We've added multiple nodes to the system since deploying it. The process is pretty seamless, and we are able to do it with no downtime. It's a very easy process to do.

The fact that we could start with a few nodes and scale very large was one of the great things with this solution. With the other systems you could add "Bricks"—that's what they call them—but you had to set up LUNs, and we spent too much time managing that part of the system. Here, you just add it in and everything just scales up. Being able to add new nodes and increase the storage without having to redo the storage pool is great. That's one of the reasons we went with PowerScale. That was definitely a big selling point.

We're relying on it completely. I don't know if there's anything that we're not using it for. We're using it in production at full capacity.

We’re confident about the solution's ability to meet unpredictable future storage needs. I don't think there's been anything that we've needed so far that they haven't been able to accommodate. We're planning on staying with the platform for the future.

I've used their technical support a few times when I had certain random issues. Sometimes the issue was Windows-related. Even when they were not able to give me an answer immediately, three hours later, after researching things, they got back to me with the correct answer and technical details on why the issue was happening. To me, that's great. That's something our previous vendor wasn't doing.

I've been with the company for 20 years, and we have had various enterprise-level storage systems over those years, but the immediate predecessor was Pillar Data Systems. The primary reason we switched to PowerScale was its ability to handle the types of data that we manage. We have over a billion very small—one-megabyte to 24-megabyte files—that we are writing to the system continuously. It's an archival storage process and PowerScale was very suited for that type of environment.

What we needed was to simplify our entire system: to have higher throughput, more redundancy, and the ability to scale without having to recreate different storage pools or LUNs, like we were used to doing.

We went with PowerScale for the reliability, the scalability, and the ease of management. 

We had a lot of practice with the simulator, so once we actually had the hardware and the real system in here, we were already familiar with how to manage and do a lot of the configuration. That's something that is not available with other vendors or other systems.

Moving from the old storage, which was from another vendor, was a significant bottleneck and took months.

Upgrading from the older generation Isilon was seamless. We just plugged in the new generation nodes and told the OS to evacuate the data from the old nodes and the data migrated without downtime.

In terms of users of the system, on the management side it's our systems administration teams, so there are a handful of people involved. The people actually using the storage are our customers and our internal teams.

Techs from EMC came over and helped us with the physical implementation, while a remote team helped us with configuration and data migration. Our experience with them was good.

We would highly recommend PowerScale. We've been very happy with our overall experience.

We use it for storage in a scale-out data processing system.

It is a physical storage platform. We have several different nodes that all act as one large storage cluster.

PowerScale has allowed us to bring data acquisition and some of the initial data processing that we would typically do in the field here on-premise. That has let us speed things up from a data delivery standpoint. 

It has let us really optimize our consistency. We've been able to take something that several different people were doing out in the field and just maintain it here with one person able to do a really good job of making sure that our data quality is very high and that our consistency in processing is a lot more static. It has prevented quite a few possible issues, which has also allowed us to expand from some of our jobs, where we used to go and acquire this data in the field. The systems out there have three servers, and we're able to expand up to 10 or 12 servers all processing that data. Therefore, it's made our turnaround on data pretty quick.

PowerScale allows us to manage storage without managing RAID groups or migrating volumes between controllers. It makes it to where we don't have to have a full-time storage guy on-premise. We are able to manage our storage on PowerScale without needing to have a team. 

The solution does provide us the flexibility to add the right tier of storage at the right time for data that resides at the edge, core, or cloud. However, that is not something that we typically do, as we have a fairly large cluster. We did have one instance where we had a very large job that was going to require about two petabytes of data. We were able to purchase that and get it installed pretty quickly, which definitely helped us out.

It is simple to use the solution for deploying and managing storage at the petabyte scale. We have almost three and a half petabytes, and it's a very low impact to our team as far as the amount of effort and babysitting that we have to do on it. This has really changed the way our company can acquire and process data in the field, allowing us to differentiate ourselves against all our competitors. None of the other competitors in our market are able to handle jobs, either in the size or density that we have been able to do so far.

PowerScale allows us to focus on data management, rather than storage management, getting the most of our data. This is mainly because the system almost manages itself. Instead of having to sit and handle storage volumes, RAID groups, LUNs, or things that in traditional storage architecture our group would have to manage, we are able to just create shares. The end user side is able to access those shares just like they would any regular storage or file server. That really helped us make sure that we're not having to manage storage the way we would with a traditional block storage or any other storage that we've tried so far.

It has allowed us to have more consistent quality controls. It has also allowed us to expand the number of servers in clients processing and accessing data, allowing us to get a lot bigger projects out the door.

It has the ability to access the file system from multiple hardware platforms from a client perspective. We have Linux and Windows machines able to access the same file system, then we also have the ability for all those systems to be able to access the same data at pretty much the same time. That helps us quite a bit, as it lets us expand the number of processing nodes that we can use to access the data at the same time. This helps us to scale out the front-end data processing to speed things up quite a bit.

We do have some of the policy-based tiering that seems to be working fairly well.

As far as we can tell, it does a really good job of maximizing storage utilization. For us, the storage protection is a bit more important. The protection schemes that we have seen so far have been very effective at ensuring that our data is protected, while still being able to access as much as possible. That is one of the strengths of the OneFS software.

It definitely helps us maximize the value of our data. We don't necessarily try to get any insights into it other than we just acquire the data and process it on our client's behalf.

We have been able to consolidate and centralize our systems into one system. It lets us take data from the field and get it in one spot, where it can get quite a bit bigger. It also has a lot more processing systems to access our data and get it out the door a lot faster.

Simplify where you can. If you have a need for tiering, then that can be okay, but it can behave in ways that you may not expect. If it's at all possible to simplify and stick with one node type, your consistency will definitely stand up a little better. If you do have a workload where tiering makes sense, PowerScale does do a good job of that. That's the only real, "Gotcha," that we've run into.

We are probably on our seventh or eighth year of using PowerScale now.

We have had a few issues here lately, as far as power and kind of unusual things in the building. We've been really surprised that PowerScale was able to work around those issues without any sort of data loss, when we have had multiple nodes go offline. After we got everything back online and running again, PowerScale worked without any issues. As far as resiliency and availability go, I am happy with the solution.

PowerScale lets us scale into much larger projects than we have ever been able to do. As far as I know, that is actually what sets us apart from our competition, as they aren't able to do projects as big, dense, or high resolution as what we are able to do.

We didn't have any storage administrators previously. However, from what we've seen on other systems, they would require them. Without growing our staff or expanding, we have been able to just bring this solution on without a lot of impact to the staff that we already had.

We have a small number of actual people using it. It's mostly just different computers accessing it. We have anywhere from 60 to 200 different computers accessing it at any given time. We have a small compute cluster that sort of skews the numbers into that 200 range. Right now, we have 95 connections going into it across our different systems.

We have had no issues at all with our technical and customer support. The product watches after itself. If there is a hard drive replacement or anything like that, it phones home and Dell EMC lets us know. So far, we have had good luck getting equipment out and getting service on anything that we've needed.

With all the other file systems that I have worked on in the past, if you had the three point four petabytes that we have right now, then that would require at least two people to work on them in a mostly full-time capacity. Because of the PowerScale's simplicity, we're able to just let our infrastructure team manage it, and it's a really low impact to them. Right now, we've two people who manage it along with all the other storage and networking that we have on-premise.

We have added a node to the solution. We added 12 of the H500 nodes to our cluster about a year and a half to two years ago. The process was really painless. We just physically installed the hardware, so rack it and stack it up, then make sure the hard drives are in place and the network connectivity is there. Once we started powering them on, we were able to quickly add them into the cluster, and the extra storage and performance were apparent very quickly.

The initial set up was straightforward. It was similar to adding the hardware where we just kind of rack and stack and get the back-end and front-end networking configured, then we have pretty much everything right there.

The initial deployment was a lot smaller. It only took a day to a day and a half before we got it going. It was only a 300 terabyte cluster at that point. 

Our vendor helped us out with the deployment, so they were able to send one or two of their engineers (depending on whether it was the addition or initial deployment). One person can do it, but two or three people will help get it done pretty quickly.

I think we have seen ROI.

The pricing is expensive, but I think it's a fair value because it does manage itself. It definitely is much simpler than any of the other scale-out storage platforms that we've looked at in the past. 

It is a bit higher priced than some of the other systems. I do think it's worth the value, but it's definitely not cheap.

We were looking at large scale storage platforms. We had a good relationship with our storage vendor who recommended this solution. So, we took a look at it and did a bit of a demo, working with our software vendor to ensure everything was working fine, then just went out to the races at that point.

We did not evaluate other options in a side-by-side comparison. We did look at a handful of other vendors. However, we were able to tell just by the specifications of what they had that they weren't really going to work for what we needed. We needed to be able to scale the storage quickly, and also have Windows and Linux access to the same data set.

It was critical for us that we could start with a few nodes and scale very large. That was one of the things that really cemented that decision for us to go with PowerScale. We started out with the 300 terabyte system and were pretty sure at the time that the jobs that we were working on were going to get quite a bit larger and would need to have more crews acquiring that data. We were really planning on being able to grow this solution right from the get-go.

The people whom we have talked to about large-scale storage have typically rolled their own with either Ceph or Gluster. However, those require two or three full-time staff which we are not going to be able support.

We have been really happy with it. It is one of the few areas in IT that we don't have a headache. We've liked everything that we have used so far with it. We have been very happy with the feature set that it has right now. It's definitely serving our needs.

We have been using the solution since version 7. It fits our use case without us having to add new features on our side. I don't know that we have necessarily seen or needed very many of the features that they have added.

We have the ability to grow or speed up our cluster easily by adding or replacing new nodes. That makes me pretty confident that if we have a significant change in our data, whether it's the number of crews that we have or number of client servers that we need to deploy, then I'm very confident that PowerScale can handle it.

We use this solution for high concurrency connection and data capacity.

It has improved our organization by filling a gap in some of our home-built applications. It provides a single unified space across the scalable infrastructure. There are no longer multiple points of entry required for the workload.

The recent introduction of inline deduplication and compression has drastically improved our efficiency ratios to make it an economical product. This solution has also had a positive impact on our employees' productivity because it reduces the amount of admin that our staff needs to handle.

PowerScale has helped us reduce our overall risk. We lean on the regulatory compliance and SCD drives to ensure data security. It offers various data multi-protocol capabilities. They recently introduced S3, as well as traditional file workloads including SNB, NFS, and SFTP. The security is built-in and includes SED and self-encrypting drives. This allows us to instantly monitor compliance.

The scalability of this solution has been most valuable. We have been able to start with a specified workload size and be able to double, triple, or tenfold it without having to change the environment.

The biggest weakness is small file handling. Small file compression options are not enabled out of the box. It would be good to have this enabled by default.

I have been using this solution for ten years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. It offers multiple petabytes and tens of thousands of concurrent connections.

Other solutions that we have used have been administratively intensive.

We have been leveraging this platform and folding it into our application stack. This has removed the need for a third-party solution which has reduced overall costs and provided ROI. 

This solution requires maintenance. Once the platform is properly deployed, there is a BAU component of maintenance including the replacement of hard drives.

I have been really happy with this product. I have not seen other products in the marketplace that offers this stability and maturity. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

The solution is easy to use.

The product has global name recognition.

The performance, overall, is quite impressive.

The stability of the solution is good.

The solution lacks a cloud version.

It would be useful if the solution could direct to AWS or Google Cloud effectively or have an AWS version. With the global lockdown conditions, you can't get to the site. It would be easier if it was connected to the cloud.

The solution can be a bit complex for those not well versed in the technology.

I've been using this solution for a few years now.

The solution, so far, has been very stable for us. We don't have issues with Isilon itself, however, every once in a while we do face a few stability issues.

The solution is scalable, however, it's quite complex, so it's not exactly straightforward. For organizations that have a lot of items they need to upgrade, it's good to have support to help. However, the solution can scale if a company needs to.

We have a few hundred users on the solution right now.

The technical support aspect of the solution has been good. We've been satisfied with their level of attention and find them to be knowledgable and helpful.

We didn't previously use a different solution, however, we are looking to switch solutions now, simply due to the fact that we would like to migrate to the cloud.

The initial setup was a bit complex for personal not knowledgeable with the solution. When you are just shown a manual, it does take a while to understand how everything works. It's not exactly straightforward.

While the initial setup isn't too expensive, it can end up being expensive depending on how many machines you have or how big you are.

We're a reseller of Isilon products.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are using. It's one of the version seven releases.

Right now, we are researching moving from on-premise to cloud, and want to know whether there is something that is more convenient than Isilon when moving to a cloud server. 

For example, with EMC, if you have something on-premise, and if you want a cloud version, you should rather take ECS. The company finds the concept a bit confusing, so they are looking around for something that is similar in terms of ease of use, and yet has a cloud version as an option.

As it stands now, I'd advise new users to rather use the Dell EMC service and learn on the job. It will be faster to get set up and be able to handle the solution.

It's still a fairly good solution. Overall, I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used by companies with extremely large file systems to manage. They typically have one or two petabytes of files and usually a lot of videos as well.

The solution is extremely easy to manage. This is its most valuable feature.

The solution isn't suitable for small environments or small customers.

The price point would be too high for companies that don't need a very large amount of storage space.

The redundancy is a little bit expensive.

The solution is stable.

The solution can scale well. It has an automatic tiering system. You can have 60 petabytes of storage. The solution offers very powerful scaling.

The initial setup is not complex. However, if you're not dealing with it regularly, it could be complex. It has a moderate amount of difficulty.

Deployment takes about two weeks and you need two people to handle it.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is very good for file management, but not for other things.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The tool's most valuable features are scalability and stability. 

Dell PowerScale's deployment is not easy. 

I have been using the product for eight years. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten. 

Dell PowerScale is scalable. 

We use the solution for high-performance storage.

The solution's configuration needs to be more straightforward. Also, its performance could be better than Panasas. In addition, its price needs improvement as well.

We have been using the solution for three to four years.

The solution is stable.

We have two end users for the solution.

The solution's technical support is better than Panasas. They resolve the issues quickly.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is complicated.

The experts from Dell's support team remotely configure the solution for us. They execute the process efficiently. It takes one or two days to complete.

It is an expensive solution. They should include technical support services with their contract.

Dell is more expensive than Panasas. But it has good technical support services.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. It has a seamless AI system. I advise others to work with good network engineers during the configuration.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is mostly used for CCTV and unstructured data storage.

The solution provides massive performance, scalability, efficiency, and ease of management.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is a bit expensive compared to other products.

I have been using Dell PowerScale (Isilon) for three to five years.

We have tried hybrid and all-flash nodes for both models. We can expand any of the nodes because there is lots of additional storage. We can also add accelerator nodes for increased performance.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution provides excellent enterprise support. There is a small delay with the L3 connection, which I hope will be resolved soon.

We have seen a return on investment with the hybrid model. However, we haven't seen a return on investment with the all-flash model because it is a bit more expensive than other products. It takes three to five years to see a return on investment with the solution.

I usually recommend this product for enterprise companies that require massive capacity. It is not for small and medium-sized businesses. The solution provides faster backup. I would recommend the solution to other users. We use Dell PowerScale (Isilon) for long-term data retention. Dell is doing an excellent job of raising product awareness among partners and customers through advertisements.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.