IBM FlashSystem Reviews

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 solution has good performance and the highest throughput ratio in a single enclosure. The most valuable feature of the solution is SCM (Storage Class Memory), which has the lowest latency value in the storage industry.

The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version.

In addition to SaaS-based enclosures, the solution's expansion options must include NVMe options.

I have been using the solution for a few months.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

The transactions of more than 1,00,000 customers are running on this solution.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

We have previously worked with several store systems like Pure Storage, HPE, and NetApp storage. We switched to IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe because of its performance.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution’s deployment took around two days.

The solution has good pricing, but it is not cheaper.

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

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.

The Flash core models offer amazing performance.

The basic setup can be challenging when it comes to certain IP addresses and the configuration of the IP. You have to go in to different menus to makes changes and ensure it is stable.

Ina future release, we would like to have a better way to install and to configure FlashSystem.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten for stability. I have experienced one problem and that was solved by EBM. It was for a FS 5,200. I had to connect to an IBM i system without some switches. I was the second or third customer who did it, worldwide. They had to make a special patch for it.

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the technical support for this solution a three out of five. 

Neutral

I would rate the pricing of this solution a four out of five. 

We considered Dell PowerStore. From a capability and technology point of view, both solutions are comparable. However, from a price perspective, IBM is 30% cheaper.

I would definitely recommend this solution to other users. It is suitable for many sizes of business due to the options they offer. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten as it offers great performance and stability. 

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 company uses the solution for central storage. Every person in our company is served by and accesses the solution. 

We also resell the solution to small business customers.  

The solution is very easy to configure and use. 

The solution's pricing is a bit high. 

I have been using the solution for eight years. 

The solution is very stable so stability is rated a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable so scalability is rated an eight out of ten. 

Technical support is great so is rated a ten out of ten. 

Positive

We sell the solution to customers who handle their own setups. 

The price is a little bit high so is rated a six out of ten. There is always room for improvement on the solution's price. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a ten out of ten. 

We implement this solution for our customers, including African banks who use it for storage. 

The storage capacity of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for six years. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical support for this solution is good. They used to help us when the motherboard of Power Systems broke. Their response times are really fast. 

The initial setup is straightforward but does have some complexity in the middle. 

The price depends of the technology that our customers need.The price can come at a lower cost but this may increase as storage is added.

I would recommend this solution because it offers good performance and the systems are fast. In terms of dealing with Oracle, it's really a good choice for customers that have their infrastructure that needs balance. 

I would rate this solution ten out of ten. 

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.