HPE 3PAR StoreServ Reviews

We have deployed HPE 3PAR systems on all database-related storage including MSSQL and Oracle. All of the SQL databases are running on VMware, and the database-related storage is mounted as RDM. The Oracle database is mounted directly to HPE 3PAR with remote-copy enabled.

HPE 3PAR provides fast and reliable storage for our critical systems like the database (MSSQL and Oracle). It also improved the availability of the system and at the same time provides a Disaster Recovery solution by using the remote-copy feature.

The adaptive optimization is also a factor in maximizing the capability of the system.

The most valuable features of this solution are Remote-copy and Adaptive Optimization. 

Remote-copy provides high availability and disaster recovery for the connected clients.

The Adaptive Optimization provides tiering and optimizes the storage requirement of the client based on its load from time to time.

The cloud-based monitoring Infosight would be better if users are automatically enrolled in the cloud/group based on the configuration or information gathered or uploaded on the internet.

The auto-discovery of the system is not easy for first-time users.

I have been using this solution for 5 years.

This is one of the best solutions if you want to have a stable and highly reliable system.

This is a highly scalable system.

Technical support assisted us with a smooth and fast installation.

Previously we were using HP EVA but since this is an old solution, we wanted to upgrade. We wanted to try a newer solution with almost the same features, like HPE 3PAR.

The initial setup for this solution is indeed straightforward, although HP will not allow non-HP engineers to do the initial setup.

The implementation was completed by an HP engineer through the vendor.

The cost is reasonable given that the licensing is all included once you purchase it.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

The setup is pretty straightforward but HP only allows their engineers to do the setup. This gives us peace of mind for the setup.

We use the solution for multiple business applications, with SharePoint, our internal management system and Exchange 2016. We are customers of HPE 3PAR and I'm a system engineer.

I think the main thing of value to me is the intelligence around the solution and how data is taken care of on the storage side of things, with your LANs and your virtual volumes and how it sort of manages everything else.

The scalability could be improved plus management. Currently, you can only identify what's connected to it through the system names and the like and it would be helpful to have an overview of everything that comes to it. It's easy to upsize but you can't downsize.

We've been using this solution for about seven years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The product used to be very scalable but its end of life will be in about a year so there's no point to upgrade or enhance it. 

The support is quite good and we'll continue to use this product.

The initial setup is complex, it requires you to do your volumes, fibre channel volume from the switch and the same connection from the storage. You also need to make sure you've created warning profiles. I don't recall how long the primary setup took, but the secondary one took us four to six hours to get it going. We used a consultant and we have 1,200 users.
We have about six people involved in maintenance, they are admins.

The product is at end of life so although we'll continue to use it, I wouldn't recommend it. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I want to build a MetroCluester in VMware.

The speed is very good.

This solution only provides active-passive replication, as opposed to active-active. Competing products also provide active-active replication.

Adding support for Virtual Storage Platform (VSP) would be an improvement.

I have been using HPE 3PAR StoreServ for more than seven years.

3PAR is a stable product.

This solution is easy to scale. It is done online.

I have been in contact with technical support and I would rate them an eight or nine out of ten. They are very good.

I am also using HPE Nimble.

I also have experience with HPE Primera, which is a better product. It's a merge of 3PAR and Nimble and it's a more stable storage solution.

If I were comparing a group of products then I would rate StorageWorks MSA a five, Nimble a seven, 3PAR an eight, Primera a nine, and StorageWorks XP a ten.

The initial setup is very simple.

The installation and configuration are quick. You can complete them in one or two hours, which is fast.

The deployment and maintenance are done in-house.

We are always using the latest version because I upgrade every year.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for clusters, database work (Oracle and MySQL), and storage.

An area of improvement for this solution is an increase in the bandwidth as well as an upgrade of the storage functionality and capabilities. The storage needs to be expandable for future-proofing.

An additional feature I would like to see in the next release is for the management interface not to depend on Java.

I have been using the solution for three and a half years.

The solution is easy to use and very stable.

The solution is scalable, but we required an extension.

The technical support is very good.

Previously, I used EMC VNX. We switched because we couldn't monitor anything unless we uploaded a data file to EMC and they send us back an analysis.

The installation of the solution required three people and took three days, but for the storage-side, it took eight hours to get running.

It is used in data centers. We are using HPE 3PAR StoreServ 8400.

It is easy to set up, easy to use, and user-friendly. It is easier to work with HPE 3PAR than with Hitachi. Its technical support is also good.

It is suitable for medium-sized businesses and data centers with less number of users and less important data. It is not really an enterprise-level solution. It needs more capacity.

It is also not really stable. It should be more stable. It should also support any server model. It is really weak in this area.

I have been working with this solution for three years. 

It is not really stable. It should be more stable.

Its scalability is good, but it needs a bigger capacity for an enterprise data center. We have around 1,000 users.

Their technical support is really good. HP is the best in terms of technical support.

The initial setup is easy. It is easier to install than Hitachi. You need two or three people for its deployment.

I would recommend Hitachi over this solution. We plan to keep using this solution because it is useful for one or two of our projects.

I would rate HPE 3PAR StoreServ a seven out of ten.

We use the 3PAR to host our SQL Database and Oracle Database. We also use it for VMware and vCenter.

We do not manage this product ourselves, so we are not familiar with all of the features that it has.

We had an issue a few months ago where we experienced a degradation in performance.

Every time you scale by adding more capacity, you need to pay for re-balancing services that cannot be performed in-house.

I would like to see an automatic re-balancing system or functionality for adaptive optimization.

We have been using HPE 3PAR StoreServ for almost five years.

This product is stable, aside from the performance problems we had.

We have added capacity to this solution between four and six times. Each time we did, we had to purchase services for re-balancing. It has to be done by a 3PAR engineer, rather than by our staff. It's a complex process. With some other products, you can just add a new disk to increase capacity, and you don't need to perform re-balancing.

There are three of us in the company who uses it.

For development, we have an IBM DS5000 storage system.

As it is for development, I cannot compare the two solutions. Our 3PAR is adapted for production.

The initial setup is complex because it needs a special engineer from HPE to take care of the setup and load balancing.

Our equipment is managed by a holding company. I request the load and capacity, and they configure it for me.

This is not an expensive product but every time you add capacity to it, you need to pay for re-balancing.

This is a product that I do not recommend because it is too difficult for people to manage, and it should also be a little bit cheaper.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the StoreServ as our main storage device. We have one unit in the main site and the other in the DR site, with replication between them. We have a file server running, it hosts our database, and it acts as our Exchange server.

The performance is very good.

This product has come to the end of its lifecycle. We could keep it for many years but we are following the recommendation from HPE and are looking to either the Nimble or the Primera.

This is an expensive product, so the price could be reduced.

We have been using the HPE 3PAR StoreServ in our organization for about five years.

This is a stable product.

This solution is scalable. We have 50 users in our company and our clients have approximately 500 people who are using it.

Technical support is perfect.

We did a comparison in the market, and HPE was the best service providers for regular configuration and for the remote configuration.

Previously, we were using HPE MSA.

The installation, which included migration from our old system, took approximately one week.

The HPE partner installed this solution for us.

We have an IT member in our organization to maintain it, but we have a support contract with a center that is a supporter of HPE. They provide us with support and services. This is not only for storage but for everything that is included.

The SSD is a little bit expensive.

We are now thinking about transitioning to the HPE Nimble or Primera, although not this year. This may happen in 2022. We plan to continue using this solution for performance, and availability. We are following the recommendation of HPE. They have recently started to mention the Primera and Nimble, which is why we are studying them.

We are not looking as much at Nimble because we are interested in the 100% availability that Primera has. The Primera is a little more expensive than the Nimble, so this is something that we have to think about.

This is a good solution and I can recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have been using 3PAR for three months. 

It's stable. Although we experienced malfunctions where a virus was running and it failed. 

We have around 1,000 users. 

Their support is very good. They are available in the case of a malfunction.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I would rate 3PAR a nine out of ten. The stability is the most important.