HPE 3PAR StoreServ Reviews

For use with a major database for telecom customers who need to collect all of their customers' information.

Provides amazing performance all day in multiple workloads. We applied different usage models which showed great performance.

Scalability, because our customer is fast growing and our solution should be able to start very small and grow very quickly.

Security is a mandatory feature because our customer needs to protect delicate information.

It's the basis of the storage of one of our five companies. All ERP and customer products rely on 3PAR storage. It's used heavily every day.

It's fast and it's affordable.

No complaints. 

No downtime, it's stable, and they are very happy with it.

I can't say anything about this because they bought the necessary size two years ago, and they don't need to expand for now.

The support is good. Fortunately, we have not needed to call them many times.

It's much better than two other platforms we have, one of them is EVA4400. EVA is less affordable and not as powerful. It works, but it's very much less powerful. For example, six months ago during a restore, the production environment was completely blocked, it worked slowly. This doesn't happen on full-flash 3PAR.

It was straightforward. No problems.

When we look to work with a vendor we look for 

• response to our calls
• affordability 
• that they have been in the market many years
• the cost.

I rate it an eight out of 10 for the reasons I've already mentioned: the affordability, the speed.

• It has a real active-active architecture, so one volume is served by both controllers with the processing advantage of a central global cache.
• It is easy to manage with the management console.
• It is always on with cache software.

It has given us higher performance over our servers/applications, which work better now than with our previous storage system.

It needs more host ports.

We have had no issues with the deployment.

We have had no stability issues.

There have been no issues with scaling it for our needs.

You should use HPE installation, or at the very least, authorized partners. 

It is an enterprise-class storage and meeting approximately almost all the business requirements of NxtraData. Upgrading the disks is a challenge that we like the most.

We started our cloud journey based on this storage solution and upgraded later on to achieve the desired IOPS.

Since the world is moving from enterprise storage to the software-defined storage, I believe that they also need to work in the same direction and that it should be hardware independent.

I have used this solution for more than three years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

On a scale of 1-10, I would rate the technical support a 7/10.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

Prices are flexible and one should negotiate hard before taking a final call.

We evaluated the NetApp solution.

Nowadays, we should look for software-defined storage rather than such OEM dependent products.

• Simple management console with ability to manage storage (files, blocks, objects, functionalities) that's user friendly.
• High-availability and resiliency
• Data security (RAID system on global level (disks = modules))

Data security was greater and the system worked faster.

There were no areas for improvement a that time.

I used it for one and a half years, before I moved companies.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent.

It's excellent.

No

It was very simple with a user guide provided from HP representative.

We used a vendor team.

Just to go for it if you need storage on site. If you need it in the cloud, there are other solutions tor that.

Problem with one of the disks in storage.

The most valuable features are the functions and the flash disks. They make our storage system much faster than previous systems.

The benefit is that it's one big solution and then we have all of the flash functions.

I would you like to see compression included in a future release. That’s what we are missing.

The stability’s fine.

Scalability is extremely fine.

Technical support is very good.

We knew we needed to invest in a new solution because of lifecycle management. It was time to lifecycle the product.

I wasn’t directly involved in the initial setup, but I think it was pretty straightforward.

My organization is a government authority, so we issue requirements and solutions, and the best price wins, when comparing the functions. Any company offering this type of enterprise flash array storage solution in Sweden could have made a bid.

Look at the vendor’s support and the setup; the benefits. HPE is great.

Scalability is the most valuable feature for us. It also has a great price point for cutting edge technology.

Because we buy so much storage, we have a lot of headroom that we may not use for six-12 months. So what we'd like to see is the booked-capacity piece which has recently been introduced at HP Discovery London.

We'd also want tighter integration between NetApp and HP.

We also had stability issues with older versions.

It has deployed without issue for us.

We've had no issues with instability.

It scales just fine.

We get great support with self-logging directly so that HP contacts us for quick fixes. But we get disc failures frequently, although there's no interruption to business because that's the way storage arrays are designed to work.

At my prior employer, we used EMC and NetApp, which were stable platforms and environments. A lot of it comes down to how you deploy. 3PAR is also a great product, but you can still deploy it incorrectly.

We used HP best practice and we consulted HP. We got it right and it works well for us because of that.

• EMC
• NetApp
• Whiptail

The storage team tech lead chose HP over these.

The most valuable features are the reporting and replication. With the reporting, we get needed information about how much and where we're consuming storage. Reporting also shows us our replication as we replicate between volumes.

It's helped us with data redundancy, which makes our system run more efficiently. Also, the interface is user friendly, but it requires a little training to know all the different functionalities and options.

It could improve in the virtualization of the storage. Also, it needs better reporting on other vendors' technologies, such as VMware.

We don't have problems with deployment.

It's stable.

It scales without issues for us.