IBM FlashSystem Reviews

We used the solution exclusively for block storage. Over time, it added compression features and now even NVMe. 

It's perfectly suited for an on-premise solution or for providing a base for cloud solutions, VMware workloads, IBM i-series, IBM AIX, IBM Power, Linux, and Windows compute. In other words, the complete server stack. It is something others actually can't offer. All of this can be operated from within the same solution. 

It definitely has a strong plus in environments where you actually have such different server solutions in place.

It's a really reliable, powerful platform. It's a mature product. It's like a BMW that evolves consistently. 

There is no need to change or buy another company's solution. It came with storage virtualization and options to move/migrate volumes around and migrates easily even before you actually have svMotion on VMware. 

It can be stretched. There is a Site Recovery Adapter. It has backup integration using flash copies. You can build a disaster recovery solution around it. IBM has its famous Redbooks where you can enter in the best practices. You name it, they've got it!

It offers separate IO Modules for connectivity additions, for compression to offload the CPU. 

It offers storage virtualization to ease migrations. You can build storage clusters and migrate data and easily configure partner relationships. 

The solution offers excellent performance! Flashcopies come in handy with backup solution integrations. The site recovery adapter for VMware Site recovery manager integration is great. Everything is working like a charm. 

I've used it in a banking environment in combination with VMware Site Recovery Manager and Site Recovery Adapter (SRA) - a wonderful combination. It saves you headaches building a recovery plan. Most of all, it works.

IBM's solution has come a long way and has had different milestones/features have been introduced. I would position the 7200 in the upper midrange class as it has lots of features - more than, for example, EMC Unity/VNXe. It doesn't lack anything, really. One could argue that NAS or S3 is not available to it, but I prefer other types of storage optimised for that job.

It is slightly more expensive, however, it all depends on your supplier. Licenses are volume-based. Larger companies with more TB usually are better off as the price per TB decreases the bigger you go. I would definitely recommend this platform!

I've known the predecessors of the IBM Flashsystem, being the Storwize 7200 (Gen 1 to 3) and SVC Front End Servers, from the time they were running on code 6.2 way back in 2011.

We have never ever had an incident with it making the infra go on its knees, nor did we have any datacorruption ever.

All storage solutions have bugs and all have their correctives that might not address an issue on the first occurance or under all circumstances. When the system is stressed and under some specific (nonetheless rare) conditions , the developped code might trigger a reboot of a controller node  to avoid data corruption. A system with 2 controllers is resilient enough on its own and a reboot of a node to prevent e.g. cache merge problems or alike is not harmfull.

To me, the need to evict a controller node and warm boot it is actually intentionally a safety precaution that avoids data corruption, something we all want to stay out as much as possible. It's as reliable as any other product in that respect. All solutions that I know off like DELL EMC Unity, Fujitsue DX-series or 3PAR Storeserv respond in the same manner to avoid datacorruption. I've seen it the most on the SVC (code 7.1/7.2 around 2012/2013  , but not on the  Storewize v7000 Gen1 to Gen2+ solutions, though I have to admit they all had about 40 to 50% of the load of the SVC.

You can build clusters with it and IO Groups.

IBM is able to deliver a support organization with well-trained people. IBM's redpieces/papers and solutions designs are published and offer real references. You can develop your own skills and become an expert or fallback on IBM Supreme Support if you feel less comfortable. 

Positive

We used IBM FastT/DS Storage (LSI Logic) with/without IBM SVC and IBM v7000 Gen1/Gen2/Gen3, shifting from legacy/traditional storage to storage virtualization.

It's quite intuitive. I always enjoyed that, whatever operation you initiated on its Webvinterface, it generated the command, and you actually see which command is being executed. I love it! It surely helps you get acquainted with the product. The setup with many modules and ports requires some design, as on any midrange solution. You get a nice template to initiate it and off you go.

I've done it myself after all the experience I've had. 

At the end of the lifecycle, the migrations and options you have mean that it doesn't require several storage solutions if you have mixed server solutions like Mainframe, i-Series, AIX, IBM PowerPC, VMware, Desktop Virtualisation, et cetera.

Also, the superb integration with VMware SRM and its Site Recovery Adapter makes it a seamless solution to make your infra resilient.

It's not as expensive as HPE Storeserv, however, it is more expensive than Netapp FAS or Dell Compellent. 

We looked at the Netapp FAS all-flash series, Dell Compellent, HPE StoreServ (7200/7400, 8200/8400, and 10500), and Dell EMC VNXe/Unity

It's a more complete solution and really up to mixed infrastructure and resiliency and has a lot to offer on scalability too

We use IBM FlashSystem as part of our core system to enhance performance.

This product will improve your performance and it has helped us with that.

Also, in prior systems where we had mechanical drives, there would have been at least a couple of drive failures. With this solution, no drive failures have been experienced so far.

Compare to our previous system, space utilization has definitely been reduced. Our old system used two racks, whereas this solution sits in a single rack and initially took up 2Us. Post-upgrade, it is 8Us but even so, compared to what we had, it is a considerable energy saving. Also, when we upgraded, it helped us to mitigate a lot of our legacy issues present with the old hardware.

The performance is very good and we use this product to enhance our core system.

The reliability is better than it is with mechanical drives.

This is a compact system, and it has a lot of pieces built into it. For everything is included for us to be able to replicate to a DR site. 

This product lacks some of the options we wanted. For example, expansion was difficult and it required a lot of patching to be done. It's not a seamless process because you need to do multiple modifications or alterations. There is a lot of effort required by the customer in order to expand the hardware.

Further expansion of our model is not feasible. As new models are released, expansion becomes difficult and you have to switch to a new model when you want to upgrade. This means that you have to migrate data between models. We want something where you can use for at least five years, where you can expand the hardware without the inconvenience of changing models. Ideally, the operating system and other applications would not be affected when expanding.

It would be helpful if the solution had built-in safeguards against security threats and malware, such as ransomware. Anything that can be utilized to enhance data integrity would be helpful. 

I have been working with IBM FlashSystem for three years.

The stability of the IBM FlashSystem is excellent.

There was no downtime when we patched the system, which is good because we wouldn't want our core system to go down.

In our experience, scalability is not very easy. This may depend on our systems so it might not be universally true but definitely, for us, scalability was a problem. IBM came out with a newer version and told us that "To scale, you'll have to either switch over to a new version or buy an additional controller."

So, scalability on that particular model was not feasible. There may be better models but the model that we purchased was not easily scaled.

We have 800 users and there are four engineers who manage our IT products.

We do not plan on expanding our use of this product in the future because our plan includes moving to the cloud.

The IBM technical support is excellent. When we had a hardware issue, they were able to fix it within the SLA period. They have back-to-back support for resolving any hardware problems.

When it comes to managing hardware, they're excellent.

We have worked with systems from Dell and HPE and we have found that more maintenance and patching needs to be done on products by those vendors, as compared to IBM.

This is important to consider because if you don't have a high-availability system then you are going to end up with downtime when patches are implemented.

The initial setup was complex because we had to move a lot of data from our old system to the new one. It wasn't difficult because of the hardware, but rather, due to our pre-existing setup. The fact that we had to migrate a lot of data was the source of the complexity.

It took at least one and a half years because we had to deploy while the system was still running. At the same time, the deployment was dependent on the systems that we had running. This is why it took so long to complete.

An integrator assisted us with our deployment and our experience with them was excellent. They've been supportive and they successfully helped us to migrate all of our data.

This product is part of our core systems, and we have definitely seen a return on investment.

The cost is pretty high in terms of licensing. We pay at least $100,000 USD in licensing fees for the storage. We have multiple types of storage, not only flash. We have the older versions of other storage and other versions of IBM flash as well.

In addition, we have a maintenance contract for this product when the warranty support period expires.

This is definitely a product I can recommend based on its performance and reliability. I don't know whether it is cost-effective compared to other similar products because we are an IBM shop from end to end. We chose IBM because the products have been well suited for our setup, and the performance and reliability are excellent.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I provide IBM FlashSystem to my customers and host it on the GBM private cloud, to give them the best services. I am working on a project to replace an HP Primera with an IBM FlashSystem 5200. This solution consists of two boxes connected with the remote mirroring feature of the FlashSystem. Each box has about 30 terabytes of storage and is replicated using a flash copy. The boxes are connected to a Power System running AIX, and I have implemented the EC tier with multiple layers of disk including MV, SST, and rotational disk. Additionally, I have set up Spectrum Protect to make backups to the TS 4300 tape. This project is currently being implemented and should be completed within the next month.

At the FlashSystem level, customers are especially fond of multi-tier and distributed rate systems, particularly the dynamic rate six arrays. They appreciate the extra layer of protection this provides, as well as the Easy Tier feature which is analogous to IBM’s FlashCopy. Customers find the FlashCopy feature highly beneficial, and the feature often comes up in conversations.

Customers are delighted with the new version of IBM's Virtualize system because it allows them to easily expand arrays with a single disk, something that was not possible in the past. They appreciate the added convenience of being able to incorporate multiple items indistinctly into the array.

Our customers have raised concerns about the limitations of the FlashSystem 5200 and 7300, which only offer a 32-gigabyte connection. This presents an issue for customers whose other infrastructure, such as old HBA cards, is limited to an eight-gigabyte connection. To maintain the recommended N minus one connection, the customer must use the 32-gigabyte connection, which is not ideal. To provide more flexibility, our customers would prefer to have a 16-gigabyte connection on these small boxes. The customer was initially unhappy with the situation because they had to replace all of the eight-gigabyte connections in their sixteen servers in order to migrate to a new storage system. Furthermore, to remain competitive, the customer had to be given the machines for free. While the customer accepted this, it was still a displeasing and uncomfortable experience for them. However, the machines were eventually sold and installed, leading to a satisfactory outcome. Despite this, the customer was still left with a feeling of dissatisfaction from the negotiation.

I have been using the solution for several years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten. The latest versions of Virtualize, from 8.5 and above, are highly reliable. I have not had any complaints from customers about them.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten. This solution is highly scalable, allowing for both side-by-side placement and clustering. This makes it an ideal option for me due to its scalability.

My technician told me that the initial setup of this machine is much faster and easier than with previous versions, and they were very pleased with it. Though I haven't experienced it myself, I understand the positive experience it has provided.

For example, with the small model, we can configure the machine to enable us to access the SAN. This includes configuring the worldwide name and getting familiar with the SAN experience. It typically takes around three to four hours to set up boxes in the morning, depending on the size of the array and any specific configurations that the customer wants. For smaller models, this is usually the case. For larger models, the setup time may vary but is estimated to take no more than four hours for arrays up to 30 terabytes. 

For deployment on the small machine, one to two people are typically required, as it is necessary to have two people to rack the machine. For larger machines, three people are usually used for racking and setup. The large machines are the DS, the Enterprise, and the 7300.

I'd rate the basic licensing and the Virtualize software a ten out of ten, and the extra Spectrum and other an eight out of ten. However, if we combine the basic and advanced licensing, I'd give a score of eight out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten because of the solution's flexibility, scalability, and great prices. Last year's performance was remarkable, and I expect the same this year. IBM FlashSystem truly exceeded my expectations.

I suggest using the ESS for planning and ensuring a thorough conversation with the customer about their desired outcome. Proper planning is essential for successful implementation; if the planning isn't done well, it can lead to having to redo the work. My advice is to plan carefully and talk to the customer to make sure we understand exactly what they need and how to deliver it.

The general use cases depend on the size of a company. I work with the commercial sector, the FlashSystem 5000 and its different models. It suits the small to medium, or SME, companies. The FlashSystem 9200 goes mainly to big enterprises, like banking or governmental sectors. The 7200 plays sometimes in SME and sometimes in bigger enterprises. 

One of the most valuable features is that it's very easy to use and configure. It used to be more difficult, but now it's almost flawless. 

The pricing could be improved, but I think it's getting better and better with each version. 

IBM needs to implement NAS storage again, as this is a big flaw. Dell EMC is very good at this and if you compared them based on NAS storage, Dell EMC would win right away. IBM's solution for NAS storage is very complicated. We don't have a storage box that provides file sharing from itself, we have to put software on it and go through a whole complicated process. It should be simplified. 

I have been working with IBM FlashSystem for around seven years. 

It's really stable, and many customers have experienced this as well. 

It's easy to scale, but it depends on the model. The 5100 is obsolete, but the 5200 has line expansions, up to two controllers, and can scale out both ways. The 7000 and 9000 can scale to 20 expansions and four controllers. It's very scalable, both horizontal and vertical. 

I believe the second line and third line are very responsive here. It depends on the customer's warranty level, if it's 9x5—it can't be like 24x7, which is immediately. 

IBM has some features that don't exist in other brands. External virtualization, for example—Dell EMC has the same feature, but it's applied differently. IBM's approach is to make it usable in many different scenarios so that the customer can work with multiple vendors under the IBM controller. Dell EMC can't do that. The external virtualization stacks with Dell EMC, and the features stack to every box. If I have a main box with high specs and I virtualize another box with minimum specs, that means I'm stuck with the minimum specs. With IBM, if I'm working with the virtualization engine with higher specs, I get the benefits from these higher specs, even if the virtualized box has minimum specs.

The initial setup is very straightforward and user-friendly. The FlashSystem 5000 can be deployed in around 20 to 30 minutes, but it depends on the number of volumes and the tools we set up afterward. On average, it can be installed and initiated within an hour, including microcode updating. If you calculate from the time I begin unpacking to the time I start to configure volumes, it will not exceed around 45 minutes. 

I implemented myself. 

The pricing may be a bit higher than other brands. If you compare the IBM FlashSystems in midrange with Dell EMC in midrange, IBM costs a bit more, but I prefer IBM because it has more specs that I can benefit from. 

Two years ago, we had all features installed in the midrange box without any need for extra licensing. However, lately we have features like Easy Tier and FlashCopy, which need extra licensing. We can purchase it with the box or afterward, and it's a smooth process. 

In my experience, IBM doesn't need maintenance at all. Every year, there is a microcode update to get a new feature or fix a bug, but I know some customers who have had the box for more than five or six years without updating it and it still runs well. 

To anyone who's looking into implementing IBM FlashSystem, I would advise you to read the instructions on the box. If you follow the instructions, implementation will be very smooth and easy, even if you're not a professional. 

I would rate this product a ten out of ten. 

Our entire company uses the solution for block storage. The solution is easily administered and maintained by four technicians. 

The solution has a very compact physical footprint that is high performance and easy to administer.

The solution allows for easy migrations from previous products or vendors via its embedded storage virtualization function.

The solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel. This is magnitudes lower than competing products. 

The 8.5 release for the 7300 and 9500 Flash Systems no longer allows IO group migrations. The replacement volume mobility is not as seamless as IO group migrations.

The Kubernetes CSI driver and the open-stack cinder driver still rely on SSH instead of native APIs for configuration changes. This reduces the limit of outstanding configuration changes that can be submitted to storage in bulk. 

The solution has not yet adopted Swordfish APIs and its SMI-S APIs are legacy and depreciated. Swordfish's are vendor-independent APIs made by the Storage Industry Association that allow you to manage storage no matter your vendor. These new generation APIs were released after ten years but IBM has not yet jumped on board. With a multi-vendor environment like ours, implementations are easier with universal APIs. 

Redhat Enterprise Linux clones such as CentOS, AlmaLinux, or Rocky Linux are not supported. All are binary compatible and should be supported because they are fundamentally the same product with different branding. 

It would be helpful to have a public page listing the minimum supported firmware levels for HBAs from different vendors. We have run into bugs with fiber channel cards that were solved with firmware updates. It was a laborious process to cross-reference vendor information so it would be helpful for IBM to provide recommended baselines for firmware. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is scalable within reason. We lease it based on a four-year forecast and then return it when the lease term ends. The solution can scale up a bit but we haven't really changed configurations during our lease terms. 

Technical support is very proactive and we receive alerts when they are visiting the data center or asking for permission to change a part. We are alerted to part failures before we even have a chance to find them in logs. 

I rate technical support a ten out of ten. 

Positive

The setup is quite straightforward and easy. 

The rack mount took thirty minutes because we had to cable the device. Deployment took about ten minutes. 

I implemented the solution because it is an easy product to set up. It is a pleasure to occasionally get out of the office and assist the data center. 

Previously, integrators helped with installations but weren't utilized much. 

The pricing is competitive in our country. In some countries, IBM is the most expensive vendor but that is not the case for us. 

We also negotiated a 60% discount directly with IBM because we are the largest consumer of enterprise hardware in the country. 

Each solution has its pluses and minuses. Pure, Dell EMC, and all other products have room for improvement. 

IBM is a good vendor with an excellent product, but the software side of the company still needs improvement. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. All top-tier solutions have room for improvement so I never rate them higher than a seven. 

Our primary use case for this solution is managing and supporting our workloads currently running on IBM FlashSystem. Additionally, we use it to run our ERPs.

We like how straightforward the IBM system is and the technical team's support.

IBM FlashSystems is lagging in optimizing storage technologies, which can be improved. For example, deduplication with Dell EMC and their storages are far ahead of the curve regarding data storage deduplication. Deduplication is when you remove all the data duplicates from your system and save more data in a smaller physical space. If there are any duplications in the entire storage, they should be removed, and data can be saved. There are two types of deduplication, inline and post-save deduplication. Inline refers to the data travelling from the system to the storage to be stored. The system removes the duplicated part and then stores it to save space. Another kind is that you store the data first and then remove the duplications, so you will need a larger area to read and write. The inline deduplication needs to have global deduplication enabled.

We have been using this solution for five years.

The solution is stable and has no issues.

The solution is scalable and has varying degrees of scalability. For example, if you have to buy a port and initial or entry-level storage, it can scale up to a certain level. After that, you'll have to change the box. If you need a forklift to pick up and bring in a new device regarding scalability, we usually plan for three to four years because technology changes fast. Hence, with five years of scalability, you will have no issues scaling that product to a certain level. 

I rate customer service and support ten out of ten.

Positive

IBM storages are straightforward. The only issue is the higher-end machines of the V9000 storage systems. There are two ways storage can be configured, and if you have multiple controllers in storage, you don't need to enable zoning between the two controllers. However, for IBM V9000 and above models, the controllers are also zoned through your zoning system. I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten.

We have no issues with the price as it is very competitive. So, if you want to buy high-end IBM storage, HP would go higher than IBM, so if it's a million-dollar storage and you have around 150 terabytes of hybrid or all-flash storage that you deploy, then it costs approximately 1.7 million dollars. This solution is the second most expensive in the market.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. The solution is good, but variable-length deduplication and global deduplication can be included.

IBM FlashSystem is used for performance systems.

IBM FlashSystem has improved the way the organizations of my customers function.

The most crucial feature of IBM FlashSystem is compression.

The only issue my team faced was transferring the data from the old system to IBM FlashSystem, which is an area for improvement in the solution.

I've been dealing with IBM FlashSystem for four years.

IBM FlashSystem is one hundred percent stable. My customers didn't encounter any failures, so it's good.

IBM FlashSystem is scalable, but it depends on what you're selling. You'll have scalability issues if you sell it as a complete system with maximum capacity. I didn't sell the entire system, so it can be upgraded if the customer needs more capacity.

I haven't contacted the technical support for IBM FlashSystem.

I sold other solutions apart from IBM FlashSystem, but the price for IBM FlashSystem was better.

Two of my customers preferred IBM FlashSystem, and the third customer liked Hitachi, but Hitachi was more expensive, so that customer went with IBM FlashSystem.

The implementation of IBM FlashSystem was straightforward. It will take less than two hours to implement if it's just a small system.

One engineer from my company and one engineer from the customer side took care of the deployment of IBM FlashSystem.

My customers got the IBM FlashSystem bundle offer. It was a one-time purchase for three years of service. The price would depend on the storage size and could reach between $25,000 to $55,000.

My company sells IBM FlashSystem to customers. I'm a salesperson.

My company sold six IBM FlashSystem to three customers. One was large-scale, while the other two were small-scale. The customers use the solution on production and deal sites. The capacity of my customers is sufficient at the moment, so there's no plan to increase the usage of IBM FlashSystem.

I'd tell people looking into implementing IBM FlashSystem that installing and managing it is straightforward. The solution also has excellent performance.

My rating for IBM FlashSystem is nine out of ten.

My company has a partnership with IBM.

Our primary use case is we are required to share storage. We share and cluster the application and databases. We use the IBM Flash System as a tier of storage. We have SND, cache, SST storage system, and staff storage. When performance or database is required we provide the storage tier from the SAS-based storage. It is a hybrid storage system that combines both SAS and SN storage.

The data is the main factor. The security encryption of the data with storage has been the biggest improvement to our organization.

The most valuable feature in demand is virtualization and its support storage of virtualization features.

In the next release having the next level of high-speed performance would be great. We should see an increase in the FC board to thirty-two G, sixty-four G UBS port for the performance to be readily available. 

I have been using IBM FlashSystem for the past two and a half years.

IBM FlashSystem is a very stable solution and its default rate is low. In the past four to five months we only received one default.

The scalability is excellent. We can add a storage box as required and the capability is increased on that particular box. In one year we export our data to the boxes and we have doubled.

We previously used HP three Power and DX four hundred and ten storage. We needed the virtualization feature and IBM FlashSystem was the only one that offered that.

The initial setup is complex because it requires a more extensive knowledge base. There are multiple parts from storage, and data parts, and the configuration zoning of each of them.

We used a third party and had it deployed by IBM.

We can see a return on investment on the technical side. IBM FlashSystems is stored in a centralized way and with the original fee. We can protect the time and we can restore the application in case of any disaster.

I would rate IBM FlashSystem a nine out of ten.