IBM FlashSystem Reviews

I am using the private deployment model. 

The ability to create LUNs and modify them is the most valuable feature of this solution. It has a very good storage system. 

Enterprise data storage needs improvement. They should create a feature for data and file storage. 

It is stable. 

It has good scalability abilities. 

They have good technical support. IBM has offices in Ukraine that have knowledgable engineers. They speak Ukrainian. 

The initial setup was easy, understandable, and straightforward. It's a very good product. 

The price is fair. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. Engineers think that Dell EMC has better storage than Storwize. 

We use the on-prem deployment model. Our primary use case for this solution is for backup for the solutions. We sell this solution to customers. 

The most valuable features are deduplication and compression. 

The interface is also good.   

The ease of installation should be improved. We had issues with the configuration model. 

In the next release, there should be and flash and caching features. Customers also have problems accessing their files from the storage. That's what they usually complain about. This is something they should improve. 

The main issue is the speed in terms of accessing the data. That is the customer's big complaint. They also complain about the speed of the hard drive.

We did not have any issues from the client saying that Storwize had stability issues. We didn't have any issues with it. 

Technical support was okay. We had their support remotely and also from the local support stream.

The price is good. We are also IBM partners and the give big discounts for the same product. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We are running private clouds for various customers on top of VMware with IBM on the storage layer

Performance is not a problem anymore and the space available is enough for about 5 years of operations. Wa are now busy with cross dc failover which will use the capabilities of this system extensively.

A valuable feature of this solution is the metro/global mirror for synchronous/asynchronous copying of data between data centres.

ISCSI/ISER Bandwidth is at 25gbps. Would be nice if that can keep track with the bandwidth currently available in new dc networking deployments.

We are a 100% satisfied with the stability of the solution.

The system can be expanded with additional trays. Current we have about 2,000 users on the system. They are mostly end users, database administrator, and developers. 

We are happy with the technical support.

We used hyper-converged storage in the past and the reason we switched was because the reliability was not as good as we had hoped with the bigger workloads.

The initial setup was straightforward and it took us about two days to implement it. We did everything ourselves.

The biggest lesson we've learned so far is that hyper-converged storage is good for smaller workloads, but the re-syncing after a failure will be a problem for big workloads.

The IBM System is top-notch and offers all the features we need to keep going for another 5 years.

We have a clustered network using an IBM 3650 for our server. Our environment is entirely in-house, and we are not currently running anything in the cloud.

We are planning to migrate from our current system, as the equipment is getting old.

The support is simply not there, so it needs to be improved.

This solution needs a management console where we are alerted to issues and can report them, or escalate them through email or another method. If something happens to our storage, for example, then we will be notified, and we can report it through the console. 

Stability-wise, this solution is fine. However, we have been having some trouble with our cluster breaking. 

This solution is scalable to an extent. 

We have been facing many issues with support. The main dealer here for IBM is not giving us any support. They are useless fellows, and if you raise any IBM issues they are not serious about them. We are fed up with this situation, which is why we are migrating.

The initial setup of this solution is complex.

We are currently in the stage of migrating our environment to a Huawei solution. It is similar to what we have now, being on-premises and nothing related to the cloud for the time being.

We were having too many support issues with IBM. Within the past couple of months, we were having physical server issues, including problems with the RAM.

My advice to anybody who is considering this system is not to do it. I do not recommend it. It is a big no.

The biggest complaint that I have about this solution is the support. It is important to have responsive support. We had a RAM issue, and the RAM is the heart of the server. I had to escalate the ticket and wait for thirty days. During that time, my server was totally down, which caused our productivity to suffer. It was a big disaster.

The hardware may be good, but I cannot rate this solution very high because of the support.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is deduplication.

The feature I find most valuable is the deduplication because the nature of the data that we are using in our current environment has a lot of replicated data. You tend to create a copy of the same system multiple times for different reasons. So if you use a flash system that is deduplication-enabled, you end up using less capacity. 

I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights. An automatic flash system that doesn't do compression or deduplication will flush through the rights directly from the host to the flash modules. It doesn't keep them in the cache. For compression and deduplication systems, they have to do compression, deduplication and the memory and cache for the controller. So they have to keep the data there otherwise you will find yourself stuck with performance issues.

The solution is currently hosting our core banking system and we haven't faced any stability issues, so it is very stable.

I have only four boxes now, so it's not the best scalability you can get, but it is still acceptable. Since we are hosting our core banking on it, we have about 20,000 employees working on it.

I will rate their technical support an eight out of ten. If you send them a question, it takes them ten days to come back to you with an answer. But besides this, we've had no other issues. 

We use EMC devices and IBM FlashSystem concurrently, but we have a different evaluation for these products. They are not the same because our critical applications are hosted on IBM FlashSystem. The less critical applications are hosted on VMAX.

The setup of the IBM devices is really straightforward. The actual deployment for the IBM FlashSystem took about seven hours. One of our partners was responsible for this, and we are very satisfied with his performance.

My advice to others would be to go for the big one, the A9000. It is a little bit more expensive but it offers a better total cost of ownership.

In the next version, I would like to see external virtualization. We are currently using LVC for external virtualization, and then we are using the boxes under LVC. If IBM embeds the LVC feature inside the box, I will only need to use the box and then virtualize the smaller boxes behind it. It will simplify my issues.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The performance of the All-Flash System is very good. There is more enhanced performance and data production in the solution, which I appreciate.

They should reduce the cost of the solution and offer smaller storage sizes to target small to medium-sized businesses.

The solution is not easy to implement. It takes a lot of time to study the product and it's a little complicated in general.

The solution should offer integration with the cloud on the next upgrade. It might already be there but we have not integrated that, or gone for that upgrade. It would mean we could keep a copy of our data in the secured cloud, whether it's Amazon or Azure. 

So far, stability is fine. It's been almost three years now and it's working perfectly well. I don't have any hardware issues or any other performance issues. I've had only good feedback about the system.

It is scalable, although it's very expensive. In maybe another three or four years we'll be adding more storage space and hard disk flashes to the existing system. Right now, we have between 500-600 end users on the application.

When you buy IBM products you subscribe to the technical support as well, so as long as the technical support and subscription are valid, they will support you. We took a five-year support subscription; we have two more years of the product subscription left. As long as the support and subscription are there, they are happy because if there is any technical issue or some format upgrade, IBM is there to support you.

We previously used DDN storage. 

We switched because IBM has got a good reputation and they gave us a better price. From a technical and reputational standpoint, IBM was superior.

The initial setup was a little complicated, especially the storage part of the implementation. The solution itself is complicated as well. 

There are multiple applications which require better performance as well as space. Both were a big issue. Some features were expensive, but we had to meet the storage requirement as well as the performance for these and had to design a solution to meet these two requirements. 

It was an implementation handled in phases, so it took about four to five months to deploy the complete solution.

We went phase by phase and then we did a performance analysis at the end of each phase to make sure that the storage performance was not going down and we were getting the best performance out of the bots. After every phase we had and throughout each phase, we had multiple performance and penetration tests as well; this was all mandatory.

We had about five people helping with the implementation. For maintenance, as long as you have an experienced person or team, you only need one or two people. 

We had IBM's main partners do the deployment. IBM was also involved in the implementation. 

They were very professional and experienced in these complicated implementations. It was was a very good experience because they knew what they were doing.

We are seeing an ROI. We are getting better performance and all the applications are working fine. Our users are happy, but performance is the key. The All-Flash System was chosen specifically for performance and we are getting that.

In our case, we calculated the storage capacity and performance we would need for five years and we bought the product outright. After five years we might have to scale the product, but then we will need to invest in the upgrade. Right now I'm not paying anything because everything from support to subscription was paid upfront. Their upgrades are free as well, so we are getting new features for the product, from the website.

I didn't evaluate another solution before choosing IBM.

We use the on-premises deployment model of the solution.

In terms of advice, I would give to others, I would say that you need to have the proper training for the solution. You need to train your staff on this product because it's not a straightforward implementation or a straightforward product, so you need to have some knowledge about the storage and how it works. Then plan and size your infrastructure prior to your deployment. We planned for five years in advance, and we are happy with the solution because we did our homework prior to implementation. 

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

The product is used as a central storage system. All live and test environment data, except for periodic data backups and centralized log management system data, is stored on the IBM Flash system.

As a result of the accelerated read and write operations from disks, productivity across the enterprise has increased in daily work.

Ability to compress the data at the NVMe disks is valuable as it is off-loading the process from the storage controller units. Hyperswap feature is valuable as it is increasing the availability without an intervention in the server operating system.

Deduplication feature is not mature and it is significantly increasing the latency. Additionally, the product has limitations in the software features and granularity. For example, data reduction feature cannot be aligned at the logical unit (LUN) level. It is aligned at the pool level. However, I expect to create some LUNs with deduplication and HW compression while some other LUNs with HW compression only. The other limitation is available at the remote copy feature. You can not create one-to-many scenarious for the LUNs which is created as the Hyperswap LUN.

The product has been stable for the last three months.

It is scalable enough.

We recently contacted the technical support and received prompt response. IBM Company has a strong customer service and support organization in my country.

This is the first time we are using a Flash System. In the past, we were using traditional hard disk drive (SAS and SATA) storage systems. We needed to increase the capacity and didn't want to invest in an old technology and slower systems.

The initial setup was really straightforward. It was not complex. Initial setup, data migration from the old products and the remote copy synchronization between Primary DC and DRC was completed in one month period.

We worked together with a local partner of IBM for the setup of the product. They showed satisfactory performance. Data migration was achieved by our own team.

We didn't buy the product for any specific purpose like increasing the number of such transactions for completing more deal in a day. Therefore, I am not sure how can I say the ROI is but it was pretty big investment for us.

Licensing is very straight forward for IBM Flash System and the warranty includes highest level of support conditions. The initial setup was very easy and smooth. The cost was higher than some other competitors.

We chose this solution among 6 solutions from different vendors. Local support organization, performance test results, cost and the technology of the product were the key parameters in the comparison.

Almost all vendors are offering data reduction functionalities (deduplication, compression, thin provisioning etc.) in their newest products. Reduction techniques are offering up to 10 times reduction in data but this ratio is not more than 2 or 3 in real life for mixed type of data. Therefore, customers should test the products with their real and different type of data to measure the reduction rates properly.

Otherwise, vendors may offer smaller sizes in their proposal and there might be conflict in between two parties after setup of the product in the live environment.

In a bank.

• Migration effort
• Site recovery plan.

Storage virtualization. Two Storwize V7000 systems in a cluster configuration serve about 500 servers (physical and virtual).

• Storage virtualization simplifies space management. 
• Thin provisioning saves space.
• Copy services simplify environment replication.
  

Virtualization, because it abstracts hardware and allows to use other storages (old DS series) as unique storage spaces.

The cluster should be improved because non-disruptive failover was supported only on a few operating systems.

We usually use Storwize for SMB customers, when they need small but reliable storage and fast response times. The performance is great.

The virtualization feature shortens the time to convince customers, to sell the solution, and to implement it.

From the moment we first see a customer and tell him that we are capable of doing this, until we do it, is a relatively short time. It's not going to be a long-term project, one that is going to take time for migration.

The user interface is very mature and it's becoming more mature all the time. They made it very easy for the user, very friendly to work with.

They have a virtualization feature and, even if you do not want to buy that feature, you can have it as a trial for two to three months. If you have another brand of storage from another company, you can use this tool to transfer all your data from the old system to the new Storwize system, which really shortens the migration time. This feature makes it much easier for us, as a business partner, to convince the customer that it can be done in a very short time, without any concerns about losing data or something breaking. That's one of the main features, and it works.

It helps me a lot when talking with potential customers who are stuck with all this data and, when they think of moving on to new systems, the first thing that bothers them is how to migrate all this information to a new system.

The other stuff that everybody sells today like tiering, which IBM calls Easy Tier, and FlashCopy, they have been around for years with the other vendors as well.

IBM gets a lot of input from the field, from system engineers, regarding what needs to be done and I believe they have a roadmap to try to constantly make the user interface more mature, as well as the options and tools. I trust they are doing good job on this.

I have looked at a few pages of a report I download and I saw a graph there regarding software-defined vendors. IBM is not in a good position on this graph. I know that they are working very hard on this, to make it much better and to get to a level where it's not only hardware but also software to provide a complete solution.

It's very stable as a single system or you can have it as a cluster for redundancy. We haven't had any issues, as far as I know, of it crashing or something that might make you suspicious about the reliability of the system. It is really reliable. The system engineers we work with have no doubt regarding any stability issues.

The scalability is fine, but it also depends on the type of customer. If they are a lower-level SMB and we can find out what their growth would be over the next year to two years, the availability of different models from Storwize makes us comfortable in telling customers that they can expand, without any doubt, for another three to four years. They don't need to worry about having to buy a new system in two years. Just upgrade and expand, that's all.

We have our own engineers trained by IBM and they are certified. I don't really recall many real issues. As I think back, there has been nothing critical where we had to ask IBM to contact their own labs to find a solution. Day-to-day, we have almost no need for IBM to show up for any problem or technical issues.

We are not in a good position to answer this question because we have worked with IBM for all these years. But I believe the way it came about was that we had a situation where we moved a customer from the competition to IBM Storwize. When we looked at the space it took, the performance, the pricing, the ease of working with it, and the migration - especially the migration, because when you want to move somebody from a different vendor to Storwize, people know it's hard work - it was easily done by Storwize and the software that comes with it.

As a business partner, when selecting a vendor the important criteria are the terms and conditions under which you can work with your supplier. In addition, it's the level of availability of the vendor when you need them, that they will respond immediately and are with you in the problem, hand-in-hand, to go solve the issues. One of the main issues is that you don't feel alone in the field, you have somebody with you. That is very important. If there is a problem, the customer also needs to be confident in who we are. We have a name and we are a business partner, but who is backing us up? When you go with a company like IBM, with all its experience, and with your own experience over all these years, that's a huge advantage.

I'm not involved in installation but, as far as I know, it's very straightforward, it's very easy. The main issue is that if you spend enough time on design, to find out what the customer really wants, that makes the implementation easier. That's where the emphasis should be. But as far as the system itself, the installation and putting it up, it takes no time. As far as I know, it's so easy.

The pricing has been very competitive for the last few years. IBM got to the point where they changed the pricing model and we feel very comfortable with the pricing. It's very competitive.

Over the last two years, IBM has been coming up with all kinds of interesting promos, especially for the SMB systems. That makes it very competitive price-wise and in terms of performance to help convince customers. It benefits both the customer and us.

We also do sell HPE if we have to, but IBM is usuall the first choice because of the pricing and performance.HPE has tried to work with us a lot and we tried to work something out with them, but each time we went back to Storwize, as it fits our needs and it's much easier to work with.

There really aren't any others really on our list. The Infinidat we have in our data center is for our own usage and our own services that we have in the cloud system. It's not something that we go out and install.

IBM is really open and available to those who want to find out what kinds of solutions will fit their needs. More than that, if it becomes more serious, with potential, IBM can provide you almost everything you need to see in its labs, to show you that the numbers they talk about are not only on paper but in real life. They are real and they can get to these performance levels.

IBM does a lot of customer setups in their labs and they invite the potential customers in and show them. But it's not for everyone. When we have a real potential customer and they demand it, that's what we do for them.

There are no 10s in the market right now. Everybody is evolving. As far as where we see storage going, it's not only hardware, it's also software-defined, and everybody is trying to reach a higher and very comprehensive level. And that takes time. It's not IBM, they need others to get to that higher level so we can have a comprehensive solution. It's not because IBM is an eight out of 10 and somebody is a nine or 10. It depends on the solution and application. In some cases, they would rate a 10, in others you might only give them seven.

I use it for virtualization and databases.

It is simple but stable storage. I use the Snapshot feature.

It is very stable.

Excellent.

I have never used technical support for this solution. I haven't needed support.

I did the initial setup based on the documentation it came with. It was very simple.

I looked at Dell and HPE solutions. I probably wouldn't buy a 3PAR but it does have more features than Storewize.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are price, stability, support, and scalability.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. It is a good storage solution, but there many other options out there with more resources.

We are using the IBM FlashSystem 900 in a tiered storage environment virtualized behind the IBM SAN Volume Controller in a stretched-cluster topology.

The FlashSystem 900 consistently delivers performance below 1ms for read/write. This performance is essential for an effective SVC stretch-cluster configuration across two datacenters, and presenting active-active storage to the customer.

The performance monitoring feature is useful as it can report in 15 minute intervals by hour, day, week, month, or by a custom date range. Version 1.5.0.0 also has a useful feature which allows for IBM to provide remote support directly into the FlashSystem 900.

Include an option to upload the support package to the IBM ECuRep when opening an IBM PMR.

The initial customer technical support was efficient and effective.

No previous solution was used.

The initial setup is very similar to setting up the IBM family of enterprise storage products (V7000, V9000, SVC, etc.).

We implemented with a business partner and IBM.

Using IBM storwize V7000 as storage to be used in daily operation as well using the virtualization capability along with doing data migrations of old storage data.

IBM Storwize It makes management of the IT environment much easier, 

High availability and enhanced security; Proven dependability; Data compression with hardware acceleration; Advanced copy services features are all in this product.

Virtualization and Data Migration.

V7000 is built with IBM Spectrum Virtualized software, which is part of the IBM Spectrum Storage family.

V7000 software:

• Provides a single or multiple pool(s) of storage
• Provides logical unit virtualization
• Manages logical volumes
• Mirrors logical volumes

V7000 hardware provide the below features:

• Large scalable cache: thru IO groups methodology
• Copy services: metro mirror, global mirror, Data Migration, point in time copy, active-active copy (Hyperwap)
• Space management: thin provisioning, Easy Tier, and compression

The Storwize V7000 nodes in a clustered system operate as a single system and present a single point of control for system management and service.

GUI interface should be enhanced more as there is some issues in copy services GUI interfaces should be enhanced as this will not let the customer doing wrong configurations

Yes, some bugs in the system, like nodes warm-started.

No.

Nine out of 10.

No, I have only used used IBM solutions.

Two methods of initial setup are straightforward, either by using USB port through Init tool or by using the technical port. sgafd

In-House implementation

15 - 20 %

Storwize software for Storwize V7000 license has the following feature codes:

• Base software
• Full feature set
• Easy Tier
• FlashCopy
• Remote Mirroring
• Compression

IBM V7000 has a new license and price structure which provides intuitive licensing based on the functions customers wish to enable and use the most.

No.

I advise everyone to have a look at their current use of storage and think of single management and live migrations of their data, and how they will save money instead of having multiple vendors to reinstall and migrate data.

The good thing is that it is very easy to use and anybody can allocate Launch to the systems. The GUI is very easy and performance is also good.

It is easy to deploy. We use this product for a variety of the applications and databases. This is one of the best features I think.

Replication features need improvement. Currently, they are there in the product, but I'm not sure as to how it works exactly.

They are other IBM products that are better than this such as IBM XIV and IBM disk storage (the old one); they have better performance.

It is stable.

We can add more disks or JBODs into it. So, it is scalable and easy to scale.

Technical support is good.

The setup was easy.

You can use this product for your applications, databases or for whatever other solutions that you have.

Cost and performance are the two things that we consider while selecting a vendor.

Virtualization of external storage, while adding cache and speed to the external storage. You don't have to completely take out the datacenter of your old storage. Just add it to the Storwize, continue using it, but with added performance/speed.

It has saved money for our clients by not replacing all of their current storages (with new storages).

• The IP replication
• Events/log analysis tools

I've never used it myself for long periods of time, since as a system integrator and partner, I have only configured these systems for the end user. However, our clients have been using them since 2011, both Gen 1 and 2.

No.

No.

Since our company staff and I are an authorised IBM service partner with certifications in servicing Storwize V7000, all the technical support towards our clients have been done by ourselves. Only when some part fails have claimed it from IBM, and that went fast.

Yes, IBM DS5300. We switched because of the external storage virtualization.

It is pretty straightforward with a nice GUI. One has to know the basic concepts and terminology.

No special advice about pricing. Regarding licensing make sure you add at least three years software maintenance from IBM at the beginning, because you will not be able to download firmware updates or any fixes/patches without this. Even if you have hardware maintenance, they will not allow a download without this SW maintenance contract.

Yes, IBM SVC, which has essentially the same software, but it has no place for disk drives. Therefore, you must attach some storage to it.

Get the control box first, without any expansion boxes, and make sure you add at least three SSD drives, because this system has an auto tiering option. Thus, your frequently used data will be automatically placed on SSDs and be accessed faster by hosts. Data for shared folders, which is not so important, you can keep on older storages virtualized by the V7000, or put on bigger, cheaper, and slower disks.

I think the v7000 is versatile, reliable, and gives really good performance in the configuration you choose. The V7000 can be configured in different ways. It has proved to me that it is reliable, that the disks do not constantly break down, and that any administration work is simple. It also has a very complete assistant that helps you to solve the problems that arise.

This product has improved the speed of disk access where I have mounted, but I do not think that is its best feature since others give you the same performance. As I said for me what recommends this product is its reliability and the peace of mind it brings.

Of course the cost, it's expensive compared to other solutions.

I've been using for more than five years.

No problem, in fact it is a characteristic that I like.

No problem, there are very scalable models, everything depends on planning and the requirements.

The technical support in general of IBM, in my personal opinion, could be much better. The truth is that I have never had any problem with them at a hardware level, the service is agile. Things get a bit complicated if the issue is not solved with a replacement part. I would give technical support a seven out of 10.

I have used many solutions, having mounted many projects with storage (NetApp, HPE, Clarion, etc.) but if I had to choose one based on value for money, I think I would stick with V7000.

The initial configuration is simple, but critical because at this point you can make it not work or even damage it completely. I think configuration should be done by a specialist. A storage specialist who had never set up a V7000 would not have problems.

As I have already noted, everything depends on how you want it set up. I think there are others in the market that are equal in cost but much worse.

If you are going to go with a V7000, you will not regret it. Be sure to clarify what you need, and it will give you the expected results.

Storage virtualisation: Use o storage pool to spread I-O load across as many disks as possible, reduces “hot spots”.

Ability to manage third-party arrays and virtualise them: One screen to control multiple arrays. Simplified administration.

Auto-tiering with Easy-Tier: High usage volumes and parts of volumes are automatically moved to high performance disks in manageable “chunks”. This means volumes with heavy I-O usage are are moved to SSD for the best response. Zero admin overhead.

Using V7000, the storage administrator has complete visibility into the I-O load and response times of the volumes, storage pool. Together with “Easy Tier”, this means volumes with high workloads are automatically moved to the highest performing disks (SSD) in the array. There is almost zero administration required once the storage pool is established.

Data migration: The migration wizard made migration from old to new an absolute doddle. Something that historically had been “hard and difficult” became a background task, once the old array was managed by the V7000.

The replication of data between IBM Storwize arrays in V1 of the product had some major limitations. A lot of the limitations were overcome in V2 of the product. Some improvement can still be made in scalability using clustered V7000 nodes.

One area for improvement is in the GUI, where host clusters are not properly dealt with. With Hypervisor host clusters, all hosts must see the same volumes in the same order. Using the concept of a “host-group” has been around (even with IBM) for many years, so why not with the V7000?

Four years.

Some isues were encountered during upgrades in the early firmware versions. This has now been resolved.

The V7000 can scale up to 10 enclosures (disk shelves), each up to 24 disks per enclosure. A cluster of 2 x V7000 has twice the capacity.

Using the V7000 you must be careful not to overload the CPU and disk backplane. When planning to implement any storage array, you must plan your workload carefully. IBM have a superb tool, Disk Magic, that predicts the I-O performance of the array configuration you have selected. This is an invaluable tool in planning any IBM storage array.

I was lucky to have a very good relationship with the local IBM storage support experts. The implementations were done under IBM guidance and, knowing this, any issues that came up at my sites were quickly dealt with. The support staff knew the arrays had been installed with expert guidance and had no inherent issues in design.

Previous storage solutions included the HPE 3PAR array family. We switched to IBM for 3 reasons:

• Upgrade cost
• Complexity with administration tasks and day-to-day running
• Support costs

The IBM V7000 initial setup was straightforward, as I had engaged IBM support early on and was given very good advice on how to size, configure and implement the array(s), including data migration from the old to the new.

It pays to go back and get the best price you can from your supplier. The first offer is not always at the best discount.

Ensure that all the features you need (including replication) are included in the license options.

Several vendors were evaluated in addition to IBM: HPE, NetApp, EMC.

1. Download the IBM Redbook on best practices to implement.
2. Engage IBM support or your integration partner/reseller at a detailed level.
3. Know what you want to do and document your requirements.
4. Investigate upgrade costs and five-year maintenance options.

In the Unified model it supports SAN and NAS solutions very smoothly. Also, there is a back end command line interface which is very comfortable for scripting, especially for snapshot and business copy solutions.

V7K has better I/O performance than some other storage, such as HPE XP12K, HPE EVA (4K and 8K) and IBM DS (3K and 4K). Because of this, I have seen improvements in long-term business operations (like billing run in a telecom company and end-of-month operations in a financial institution).

It should increase sociability with respect to number of disk shelves and capacity.

Overall, five years.

No.

No.

Eight out of 10.

Switched to decommission older hardware (XP12K and EVA from HPE).

Very simple setup, especially for FC SAN network.

I cannot comment on this as I used it as an IBMer.

I compared the product with IBM DS8K. Due to a huge gap in price, and not having very high-level needs, I selected V7000.

This is highly reliable storage. Other than not having very high IOPS requirements, RAID5 would be good enough for application and database LUN. But before creating the RAID group/array, the implementer should have proper projections.

• Thin Provisioning
• Flash Copy
• User friendly management interface

We run our business applications on it. Also OS was booted from SAN.

Product support is restricted to IBM only. It must be decentralized to IBM partners as well.

Six years.

Yes, we faced power supply failure, Multiple SAS drives failure, and at the end both controllers were dead.

We are able to add additional drives easily.

One out of 10.

No, it was our first experience with any kind of SAN.

Initial SAN configuration was smooth.

If you are planning to purchase a new SAN then go for all flash. Do not invest in a hybrid SAN.

Yes, HPE and Fujitsu.

Please make sure that you will be getting proper after-sales support from IBM.

• User friendly interface
• Robust hardware
• Good support

VMware and Hyper-V datastore (with Fiber Connect). All virtual systems are running on the Storwize V7000 storage in our company.

Deduplication and DRC synchronization. Deduplication is small, limited. We need better deduplication and disaster recovery.

Since 2014.

Good stability.

No.

Global support is good.

Yes, I myself have used. The customer decided to switch.

Yes, it is easy in terms of management and installation.

Yes, I evaluated HPE, Dell EMC.

Check IOP values and disk speed. Check often for updates and firmware. Make absolute SNMP settings for warnings and alerts.

This was a great step forward from the XIV in next generation hardware for the customer. We're seeing tremendous data reduction for many workloads. It's not a 100% move from XIV for all workloads, however, but the customer is very pleased, for the most part, in their environment.

Benefits for us include lower overall cost, higher density, lower data center costs, and reduced total TCO, as well as moving to an all-flash solution versus a flash/spinning disk solution.

The HSM management console GUI still need some enhancements. It is still a bit awkward in navigation, and some functions/features are not yet fully integrated into the GUI support, but only via CLI. We also need to get reporting down to individual pool and volume levels, rather than just overall system levels. Customers need a more granular view of their individual business usage as well.

We've had some issues with stability, such as a couple of hardware failures and a couple of code bugs. They were addressed, but they caused initial customer concern.

Scalability is quite nice, with being able to support over 1.5TB effective in one rack is a nice selling feature. One of the early issues was that they weren't at a code release where we were able to add new elements right away in a non-disruptive fashion. We had to wait for a couple of code releases for that. We've gone beyond that now. At this point, scalability is no longer an issue.

Technical support has been great. They have been engaged from start to finish.

Regarding previous solutions, this was more of a technology refresh decision. A customer was heavily invested in an older technology that they were very satisfied with, but they wanted to continue to make the move to flash technology. This was the next logical era of evolution.

The initial setup was a little more difficult than the predecessor XIV, but it's a new product, so a learning curve is to be expected. As it is becoming more common in the field, it should be getting better documented and more straightforward to deploy. We are seeing new and continual updates to Red books and best practices documents now.

We didn't really consider alternative solutions, mainly because there aren’t any out there that can touch the A9000 family. From our standpoint, we're an IBM business partner. We value reliability and performance above everything else. Price is a close second, but reliability is key.

Read anything and everything you can, such as documentation manuals and best practices that are coming out. Stay plugged into the IBM communities and leverage services if this is your first engagement for capacity and sizing.

Auto Tier is 1M-iops.

It improves our number of TPS.

Flash Manager needs to be included.

2 years.

Only battery for controller.

None so far.

If 10 is the highest, I would rate them at 9.

We were using a V7000 before, so only upgraded.

Almost straightforward and the same as doing a V7000 series.

Licensing has already everything you need like replication, but you need to consider the license cost for the SAN switch.

EMC Xtreme IO, HPE 3PAR, Nimble.

Consider which type of disk to use: All flash, High Capacity Drives, SSDs.

I/O speeds. This products in basically a RAID comprised of SSD drives with PCI-Express interface, that you can connect to 16GB HBAs, making this storage one of the fastest available in the market today.

This storage has incredible performance, the I/O is awesome. It is difficult to understand how fast it is if you don’t have one, that’s why IBM gives you a month trial, to install it in your infrastructure and give it a try.
In my organization's case, we use the FlashSystem basically for virtualization (VMware). It's amazing how fast a virtual machine boots. We use it for databases too, and the disk I/O performance is incredible.

This storage is factory configured so it's very difficult and expensive to add more flash modules (disk capacity).

Scalability is the main area which needs to improve.

Six months.

No, no at all.

IBM support is excellent as always.

No, this is my first experience with a 100% SSD solution.

No, in fact it was easier than I expected.

If you are going to buy one, have in mind the amount of capacity you need, and your estimated growth for the following years. As I mentioned above, it is expensive to add more SSD modules.

Not really, it was recommended to me by a friend, and after the first month, my company couldn't live without it.

I recommend adding a pair of SAN switches to the Flash solution, otherwise it's a waste to use as and direct attach storage.

The most valuable feature is the continuity of the user interface. Many of our customers leverage Storwize and XIV storage subsystems. That continuity in look and feel has likely helped the FlashSystem because transitioning to using this new product doesn't require any additional training or familiarization time. Instead, customers leverage their experiences to perform 90-95% of the tasks necessary to get a new FlashSystem 900 running.

It's especially important to be able to walk into a customer site and say, "Hey, you have access to the same user experience that you have with your Storwize system, and/or a very similar user experience to your XIV."

Having a consistent user experience and user interface has helped save our customers' time: we don't have to retrain them for a new user interface, and they don't have the learning curve associated with understanding the nuances of a new interface.

The FlashSystem has really helped improve our customers' I/O intensive workloads. Many of our customers leverage Flash for database workloads and appreciate the extra performance boost it gives.

A lot of the beauty of the FlashSystem 900 is that it's very, very focused on what it does, and it does it well. I don't really think there are additional features required.

The FlashSystem 900 is a relatively stable platform. While any codebase will have some issues and require patching (nothing is perfect), the codebase on which the FlashSystem 900 is built is solid.

As a building block, the FlashSystem 900 isn't really intended to scale out to a large degree. Instead, it's intended to be used as a block with which to build out a scalable solution (such as with an A9000/A9000R or a V9000).

IBM's support for storage hardware is usually excellent.

IBM's storage technical support is usually excellent.

I have been involved in the initial setup with a number of customers. It's very straightforward. It's a lot easier than the old days.

If you are looking for a great flash solution that can be virtualized or utilized as a building block for a scalable flash solution, or if you're looking for flash for a very specific workload, then you may want to consider a FlashSystem 900.

It's probably the most straightforward piece of hardware you can get. The user experience from the interfaces and the price points for the performance a really solid.

I'm an IBM Business Partner, so there's really only one vendor that we go to for our storage. However, even if I weren't an IBM Business Partner, having a pretty stable track record with their products, ease of use, and value delivered for price -- I would probably still recommend a FlashSystem 900 for the use cases I stated earlier.

IBM XIV is the most valuable part of this solution. It is easy to use and manage. It is a cheap and also has reliable technology.

We actually are a hospital and we have zero downtime or any outage whatsoever.

There is need to put a SVC in there.

It is very stable. We've been using this solution for more than ten years. We're using it on our three big sites, there were no issues.

It doesn't scale out that well. It actually goes up to 15 module and after that, you have to add another frame. But, they have come out with a new technology where you can do hyperscale. I wish they had put a SVC in front of it but, it's a hyperscale, i.e., you can be on either the A-side or B-side.

The most important criteria while selecting a vendor are reliability and their level of maturity.

It's not the best solution, but it's very reliable.

It depends as every company is different. Some companies choose reliability, while others prefer the market. You have to assess your own stuff and see accordingly, what fits your bill.

Easy to use GUI, both for me and the customers is the most valuable feature of this solution. It's very self-explanatory, very easy to install and of course, the IBM Easy Tier function is easy to maintain.

The benefits are pretty much the same as I have mentioned herein, i.e., it's the time that takes to do an installation as compared to the old products. So, everything is time-related, i.e., the less time you use then it's also cost-effective.

I really don't have any preference for it, this is very easy to install and is actually a customer setup. I've talked to many customers, and all of them agree that "This is so simple, so easy, and straightforward", so IBM has done a very good job so far.

Since 2012

Very easy so no problems.

The stability is very good.

Scalability is also very good because in the first product you could add four expansions to it, but then today, with the later code you can add nine to the controller units. So, it's very good and also, if you put an SVC product on top of it, then it works very well together as we see in all of the products as well.

Out af 10 I would say 8 for none advanced users

Very good when it's needed.

We are a business partner and what we sell are IBM Storwize products. That's our main focus, we don't sell any other vendors. So, it was a pretty straightforward decision to invest in this solution. But according to what I have seen in the past and worked with than this is without a doubt the most user friendly product.

Actually, I've done many of the installations; it is very straightforward.

This product is so easy to use.

Have it checked over, test it out and try it. Compare it to the other competitors and make a decision from there, because I think this will definitely be a winner.

Ease of use and the GUI are the most valuable features of this product. It's the same platform all over across the same product type.

The benefit of this product is how easy it is to use always. All this storage infrastructure can be done underneath one IBM Storwize product and this is how it has impacted our organization. For example, if they get the IBM Storwize V7000 then they can put the other to be decommissioned storage right underneath and they can get their work done on that.

There is a need for a little bit more of a drill down in the GUI part. There is a lot that they actually did, which is already available in the GUI but still, there's a lot that can't be done. So, I would like to see more improvements to be brought about in the GUI.

I've been using IBM Storwize for about 10 years, it is pretty good.

It is very stable. I see a lot of code upgrades being done on the system. Probably twice or three times in a year, they get new upgrades and code upgrades. That's pretty stable.

Scalability is neat as well. It can grow massively. We usually deal with SMB environments and it's pretty good for that environment.

Technical support has been good as well. Other than, maybe a few five or six different incidents in the past, they've been pretty impressive.

The setup was pretty straightforward.

For us, it's all about the commodity while selecting a vendor. In addition, the other important factors are their support level, infrastructure, how good they are, and what is their roadmap for keeping the product around.

Give it a try and look at the demos. You will like it and you will want to get it.

It's pretty good; I've been happy with it. I've worked with other infrastructures as well such as HPE, Dell, Logic and Nutanix but I like IBM Storwize.

For me and for the operations team, the ease-of-use of the GUI is the most valuable feature. It's really easy to understand. It's really easy to do tasks. That's what I like most. The performance is really good. From an operations perspective, definitely the ease-of-use stands out. Compared to other products and other vendors, it's much, much easier.

Time to value. You finish things a lot quicker. I can provision the storage a lot faster and find problems a lot quicker. The fact that I can SSH in and do CLI commands where some of these other vendors don't let you do it is a big deal. I can write custom scripts and do things a lot quicker. The ease-of-use is a lot better with this product.

There's always room for improvement. Adding deduplication would allow us to get more bang for our buck, basically.

Overall, stability is really, really good. We ran into some issues with compression, but it was because we were trying to overload it. So if we don't do that, it runs really, really well.

We have it architected to keep it at a certain level. But if we needed to, we could scale it pretty easily because it's virtualized storage. There's a lot of flexibility with it.

Technical support is really good. Because we're a bigger company, they get to us a little bit quicker. There's more on the line for IBM, so they really treat us well. It's been pretty good. We get good feedback quickly.

We needed the performance of the applications. Payroll applications are very I/O intensive and flash systems are a perfect fit. It makes sense.

I was involved in the setup and it was easy. I've done those for years.

We looked at pretty many vendors. Anybody you could name, we looked at them. We have multiple vendors in the environment, not just IBM. But for our really critical, high performance apps, we put it on the V9000.

Just be careful if you're going to try to use compression, because of the specific issues we've had. If it's a high performance computing environment, just keep it thick provisioned. Get the best performance from it. Don't try to save and then screw up the user experience.

If something fails, it's not going to bring down the application. V9000 is redundant through and through, so it's a great product.

When selecting a vendor, stability, ease of use, and resiliency are the most important things.

The ease-of-use and scalability are the most valuable features.

The common interface has improved the way we work. We don't have to learn more than one interface to manage the storage arrays.

So far, it seems pretty stable. We haven't had any major issues.

We find the product very scalable. We've been able to implement many storage arrays in our environment with very little effort.

We have used technical support. So far, we haven't had any bad experiences with them. We have been able to get the proper support we needed.

When selecting a vendor, I want stability, years in the industry, and overall stability.

The setup was straightforward.

Make sure you look at a wide variety of products. That way you can come to an intelligent decision on what platform you are going to go with.

The V9000 incorporates both the Spectrum virtualization layer as well as flash technology. It does it in such a unique manner that it provides super fast response times. There's low latency for the customers. It's very simple and easy. It uses the same interface as all the Storewize products do, so it's a very short ramp-up time for customers.

Speed. I mean it's flash. It's speed. The benefit is to reduce the amount of workload and transaction time. When customers have put data on the V9000, their response times go down and they can do more work within a shorter span of time.

They've already got one. The clustering host came in 7/8 code, so that's coming in. I would like to see deduplication come very soon. That would be really good to have deduplication built in, not only with compression, but also have deduplication with it.

The stability is awesome. It's based off a mature product line, Spectrum Virtualize. It's a long standing product. It's been around since 1999, so that core technology is there.

The flash system has grown from the old TMS days. It's a well-known and proven technology, so they've combined the two well-known and well-proven technologies to form this solution. It's just very solid.

Scalability is also good because you can add an additional FS900 behind it or you can stack in other V9000s and cluster them together. You can either go deeper or wider with your solution set. It really just depends on how much performance or workload insulation you need, whether you go wide or you go deep.

I haven't used technical support and none of my customers have had to call technical support on a V9000 yet. That kind of speaks to the product itself. It is a relatively new product, but the field time is still good. The resiliency is there.

Our customer was a legacy Storewize customer. We knew that when they were announcing their combination of Spectrum Virtualize and flash that it would be a winning combination. You can't go wrong with that kind of combination.

Our company decided that we needed to train up fast and get on top of it quick. Because of that, we were able to turn out some of the first in the Eastern area.

It can be complex if you don't follow the guide. Follow the instructions that IBM sets forth in the Redbooks and make life simple.

The implementation was very easy. It's almost a "set it and forget it" kind of product.

Read the Redbook.

The most important thing when selecting a vendor for me is how well the vendor works with me. It's a partnership, not just a sales, “here's a product” kind of thing. If you partner with us, you really get in, dive deep with us, and work through the solutions if needed. That's what makes a good vendor.

For me, it's the redundancy that the machine provides as that's the most value that I get from this product.

One of the benefits is that when it's doing data extents, it moves them faster than what I was being able to move previously, i.e., by using a flash system.

There is a need for more help with the commands because, from version to version, they change; so what I used to use back in the different version, I can't use now. Thus, it would be helpful if they improve that aspect.

For me, it's stable.

The product is scalable.

I don't use the technical support as much because it's quite stable and scalable.

We weren't using any other solution. Our storage architect is the one who decided for us to have it.

The setup was straightforward, it is pretty easy and I can do it with my eyes closed, if I wanted to.

Reliability is the most important aspect while selecting a vendor.

I would recommend to use it.

The valuable features are snapshots and snap logs. We only use those on our flash system. We value the performance of the system.

Our automatic banking systems have become twice as quick with flash storage.

I don't know about improvements. Maybe having independent snapshots. For now, when we make snapshots one by one, they depend on each other. If we delete the first snapshot, then we can lose the others. We really need functional snapshots which are independent of each other.

The stability is not very good. Over the course of the last two years, we had two incidents with flash storage when we lost our data. We have three flash storages and we lost all the data on two of them. That was not very good.

Scalability is good.

Technical support is good enough. Their advice was mainly to upgrade our firmware and restore our backups.

Test all of the products as you evaluate them.

The valuable features for us are the extra add-ons, such as the FIM provisioning, the compression, the disaster recovery capabilities, and the storage pooling functions.

Most of my customers love it because it's easy to use and easy to manage. They can get their applications up and running very fast. They can buy it at a good price.

I would like to see the connection to cloud service providers, although I think that's already there. There's not much more that I can tell you. There are some issues on a firmware level. It's not very transparent. The option to connect to a Cloud storage provider seems to be available but there is not much detail on how it's implemented.

As a field engineer I’m used to how the systems work. Some customers however have expressed to me , well for lack of better word “anxiety” at not being able to see more of what goes on in the background (as an option). They would like a more detailed progress of the firmware upgrade process. (i.e. NVRAM,controller, etc…).

AHV is Acropolis Hypervisor – A relatively new Hypervisor, robust and stable as VMware vSphere, has built-in advanced analytics and powerful operations, Self Service Portal and components for DevOps included, managed by a single pane of glass (Prism) via HTML5 and it is free of charge – That is why Nutanix is so advanced and revolutionary.

The challenge here is in order to replace massively Install base of VMware vSphere they need to expand their ecosystem with ISVs (i.e. F5, PaloAlto, Citrix, TrendMicro etc.) to provide a wider range of solutions running as a virtual appliance (vApp) just like VMware did years ago.
Currently there is an ecosystem but I think it is around 30-40 providers.

So far, it's been a very stable platform. There have been some issues lately with some bad codes, but for the most part, it's been very stable. It is something that I can recommend at any time.

Scalability has improved so far. It seems like every year there are more and more expansion added to that.

I have used the technical support and so far it has been very good. The response was a little bit lacking last year, but it looks like it's been improving.

Just buy it. Support for sure is important when considering which vendor to go for, as well as ease of use and the track record of the code base.

The benefit to our organization is primarily the capacity savings. It compresses the data so we can see something like a four to one compression.

The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression.

With regards to the IBM V7000 storage system, where we have multiple tiers of storage, a heat map would show I/O distribution across the tiers of storage. I'd like to see some type of heat map reporting on the management console. It would be nice to see something like that. It may already be in the new release, but I'm not sure. The current release may have that already.

We had no major issues with stability. It's pretty stable.

We actually upgraded it, adding expansion shelves. It was fairly simple.

I can't remember what I called the technical support for. Generally, I think their support gets the job done. It's sufficient. We have a premium support account with IBM, so we have a dedicated support person to help us get it through.

I was involved in the initial setup, but we had a business partner that did the actual physical connections. I helped with some of the configurations. It was pretty straightforward.

Our shop historically had been an EMC shop. We had the IBM storage put in just a couple of years ago. I believe management brought it in based on price, in order to get price competition between the vendors. We were primarily looking at considerations of cost, reliability, and customer service.

I would just tell them to give it a try. Benchmark it and compare it with the other vendors. Talk to some customers about their experiences.

It allows our organization to provide a more timely response to our customers.

The speed of the unit is its best feature. It performs very well.

I would like to see bigger modules. That's about the only thing that needs improvement.

So far, it's been very stable. There have been no issues.

It is very scalable.

I have used technical support and they have been very good.

We were having performance issues. We decided to find the lowest latency device and this was it.

I was involved in the initial setup and it was very straightforward.

We only evaluated EMC. This was a better performing product.

This is probably the best unit you're going to find out there.

It was quite easy to migrate from EMC storage because everything is virtualized. Easy Tier is quite nice to use.

We're a public sector organization. One of the benefits was that it was the lowest bid for us. It basically came down to cost.

I had wish lists, but I found out that they have already been completed.

At our current code level, when I extend any volume that is using Metro Mirror, I have to remove the Metro Mirror relationship. Once the Metro Mirror relationship is removed, I can extend the volumes and I have to re-create the Metro Mirror relationship and sync the entire volume.

For example, if I have a 1TB volume and I want to extend to 1.5TB instead of 0.5TB being replicated using Metro Mirror, 1.5TB has to be replicated.

The next version will include an update for this problem.

Stability has been good. We haven't had any issues, besides those that were our own fault when we pushed the work loads too high.

Scalability is quite easy. We've been expanding pretty much every year.

We have always used support. We have a main contact person, and he's a really good technical resource.

We don't really have a choice of vendors because we are public sector. To me, it's history. Our trusted partner is Horizon, and they're great people to work with. When I work with someone else, I'm not sure if they can deliver what I want. But Horizon goes the whole nine yards.

I was not initially involved in the setup. I was tasked with other projects at the time.

If cost is not a factor, I would definitely say IBM is good. Their business partners are good. For instance, they will try to get you vouchers to get training. With EMC, we never really got any training. It was all a cost for us in the public sector. We have to evaluate what training we can take, because I have a jack-of-all-trades type of role.

The most valuable features are the ability to virtualize other storage behind it, thin provisioning, compression, and flash systems.

The benefit of the product is the ease-of-management. It has significantly reduced the IT operation costs to our organization.

I don’t really have a feature that I’d be using. Other storage technologies such as 3D drives or 3D flash would be cool to see, but for the users who I’m selling to, I don’t have this to offer. I don’t think that there is any improvement required.

Stability has been excellent and we never had any problems.

It’s massively scalable, so I’ll never run into that problem.

I have used tech support and they are excellent. They always have an answer for me.

When selecting a vendor, the support mechanism and the reliability are the most important elements.

I was not involved in the initial setup. I have done it for other clients, and it’s very straightforward to set up and use.

Take it for a test drive. You’ll be impressed.

The biggest benefit is the latency. It is so low that it's going to increase your transactions for transactional data. It's going to increase the speed of any block storage on which you're trying to get low latency.

The speed and the ease of installation are the most valuable features. The IBM FlashSystem is the fastest in the industry. You can add it to their other products, such as IBM SAN Volume Controller, and virtualize it. It's a flexible system that you can use purely for speed, where you can add it to a SAN Volume Controller and use Easy Tier to speed up all your disks.

I'm not sure that I want to see any additional features. I like the way they have it. It's simple. It gives you the low latency that you need, so I'm not sure if there are any features that I would be looking for.

I would like to have a larger disk. Right now, you can get 57 terabytes in a shelf. Once they get the larger disk and you get larger capacities, it'll be even better.

To be more specific: The FlashSystem 900 is perfect for providing pure speed and low latency. I am happy that the product doesn’t have Storage efficiencies built into it natively. You can Virtualize the FS900 with the IBM Storwize family and gain storage efficiencies when needed. Today the largest FS900 MicroLatency module is 5.7TB or 57TB per shelf. It will be great when the larger MicroLatency modules are realesed to provide density.

It's been a great product. As they increase the firmware codes and add new enhancements, it just becomes more stable.

It's a good, scalable product with which you can scale out. And you can add it to virtualization. Whether it's a V9000 or you add it to an SVC, it becomes even more scalable.

I have not used technical support.

I actually performed a PoC of multiple flash system products and found IBM FlashSystem to be the fastest one out there.

I was involved in many initial setups. That's part of my job to do post-sales installation. So I've done it for several companies. It's very simple and straightforward.

We looked at Pure Storage and EMC XtremIO. We chose the IBM FlashSystem because it performed the best in the PoC.

If they:

• Have to choose from what's out there in the industry
• Are looking for storage efficiencies where they're going to get deduplication and compression
• Are looking for pure speed

Then the IBM FlashSystem is the way to go.

If they need efficiencies, like compression and deduplication, then they need to look at the IBM A9000.

Support is the most important thing when looking at vendors.

The ease-of-use and ease-of-setup are the most valuable features. You can get one up and running in a couple hours. I do it quite frequently for customers. The simplicity of it is the big benefit for me, compared to some others that I've used.

A lot of features are beneficial. It's a robust solution from my standpoint. We've got it running on several different configurations. You've got tiering and a lot of nice features to have in today's world. You can put flash in them. It is a good system to use.

As far as for what we use it for, they have got it spot on for our market. I'm sure others might have some additions, but our market is more in the SNB space. It is everything we've ever needed.

With the latest releases of software, it's pretty robust. They've pretty well nailed it. I don't see any further weaknesses with the interfaces or anything.

I have not had any real issues. I think it is very stable. We have not had any outages or any unexpected issues. I would say it’s very stable.

It is definitely very easy to scale. It's like everybody says, "plug and play". It just works.

Technical support is very good.

We had a few customer requests for it. I attended conferences and they showed me that they have really put a lot of time and effort into this. It's a good solution. It was worth our time to push it for our customers.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

We did not look at other vendors. We are a business partner for IBM on the storage side. Primarily, they're the only game we mess around with.

Definitely give it your time. Give it your time, get some IBM folks to show you some benefits and maybe do a demo. It's a great solution.

It is software defined.

It's flexible. You don't need to buy big hardware solutions that are vendor-bound. It's one of the first, fully software-defined solutions on the market available. It's actually built in-house, so it's very robust, tested, and it works right.

I would like it to be more scalable.

It's very stable.

It's not extremely scalable as of today. There are certain limits of the hardware that it runs on. Essentially, it does provide for medium to large enterprises in a single appliance solution.

I have used support and it needs improvement. I don't like the way that levels of support are organized. Level-1 never provides any support anymore. It just relays communication to the actual Level-2 support. Level-1 support barely understands the problem at first.

It's been well established in the market for probably over 10 or 11 years now. This was one of the first solutions available.

The setup was straightforward.

We are open to competitive market solutions, but a single vendor solution is something that definitely makes sense for our enterprise.

When looking for a vendor, support is important, as well as market position.

The valuable features are high availability, compression, and a failover mechanism. It's a very highly available storage solution.

It can virtualize external rewrites and you have a single pane of management. Instead of having multiple managements for different storage products, you can have a single pane to manage everything. The external virtualization is a really good feature.

High Availability – any server, physical or virtualized accessing the IBM Storwize can be in a high-availability configurations. This will make applications available all the time to provide service to the end users.

Real-time Compression – it reduces storage costs by compressing it up to 80%, therefore saves rack space and power consumption.
Storage Virtualization – it can virtualize different storage from different vendors, thus helps ease of use by providing single pane of management and device drivers.

Storage Tiering – automatically migrates data between different storage tiers depending on the usage of the data. This will help reduce costs by avoiding to purchase dedicated SSD or Flash drives to applications that needed performance.

It allows the company to be highly available and be able to recover the storage if there are some issues.

I would like to see the snapshot management embedded within the GUI. Right now, the snapshot management, if you want to schedule, or do multiple scheduling in a day, you have to use scripting. Customers are not highly technical, and they really cannot do scripting. If IBM could include the snapshot management within the interface, then that would be good.

I know they have a flashcopy manager, but it is extra software, an additional license, and some customers don't like to add addition costs to their infrastructure. If IBM could create, or include snapshot management within the GUI, that would really be helpful.

I have a lot of customers who are really interested in the Storewize product and they are using snapshot management. It's really good to have this kind of investment, because this product is really good.

It's a very stable product. I like it, and I have a lot of customers using it.

Storewize is scalable, especially the V-7000. The GEN-28 can scale up to 20 expansions. It's highly scalable and you can have a maximum of 8 nodes.

I have used the technical support on occasion, but not a lot. It's good. As long as you provide them with the correct information about the problem, they will respond very quickly.

The initial setup was easy, very easy.

I highly recommend it.

The most important feature that our customers are very interested in is the virtualization. Being able to have the flexibility as they grow, without having to just lift and replace everything that they're doing.

Where it's moving into now is a unified set of advanced features that they're able to lay across their enterprise, without it being different in every single product that they're dealing with.

The virtualization, the flattening, and those advanced characteristics of the product are really what our customers have gravitated towards on the V9000.

When it comes to our benefits from this solution, a lot of it comes down to simplicity. If we take a look at a lot of these complex IT solutions today, they're very hard to maintain and to administer. However, the V9000 and the investment that IBM has made to the user experience, makes it very easy for our customers to be able to self-maintain and self-administer their own environment. They don't have to always go to a storage consultant or have to call into support. That's been very beneficial to our clients.

We think that IBM has to continue to invest in additional data reduction capabilities which are on their roadmap. Being able to use flash most efficiently, where the least amount of data is physically being stored on the V9000 is really where IBM needs to make additional investment. They are doing that.

The stability's been rock solid. If we take a look at the V9000 and the base of what it's built on, it is the heritage of IBM Storwize. This goes back to IBM SAN Volume Controller or SVC. We're on a very mature code base and it is a code base that's been very extendable.

So over the years, they've been able to inject new capabilities in the product line while still keeping the product very stable. We've had customers who have been through multiple upgrade cycles over the life of the product with no issues at all.

The scalability of the V9000 product is really where it shines. Being able to add additional capacity to the unit, without having to come up with a different management of lots of separate units, has been very beneficial to clients.

That idea of starting small with their current flash rollout and then being able to grow as the budget allows, has been very beneficial to clients.

We've been absolutely happy with the technical support.

From an IBM perspective for technical support, they really love the V9000, especially when you're going to do some enhanced service offerings that IBM has.

When it comes to using things like the technical advisor, being able to have more of a concierge service with support has been very beneficial to clients.

A lot of our customers were previously using either all disk or hybrid solutions for their storage. Moving towards an all-flash V9000, allowed them to take performance management and stop having to worry about that in their everyday tasks.

Moving to an all-flash array allowed them to spend more time dealing with application integration and dealing with their end users. This is rather than having to do performance management and moving data around. The all-flash array made their life a lot simpler.

We were involved with all aspects:

• Initial design
• Setup
• Rollout
• Integration with the different operating systems and different hosts through the storage fabric

It was straightforward. What we really like about the V9000 is that we're able to take implementation engineers who had experience with other members of the Storwize family.

They are able to take those skills that they learned within other product sets and directly translate those to the V9000.

They are able to very quickly come up to speed on the product without having to learn a brand new skill set.

From a CAS Severn perspective, IBM continues to be our premier supplier of storage. We do have a lot of experience with other vendors in the industry, including Pure Storage, EMC, and HP.

When it comes to recommending a vendor, the entire lifecycle of supporting a system is important. That's everything from design, to implementation, to ongoing support. IBM provides a strong package on all three aspects of the lifecycle of the equipment.

Folks that are looking to implement the V9000 really should take a look at the simplicity that an all-flash array can bring to their environment. They should look at the efficiency of being able to take skills that they might have learned within other Storwize products and be able to directly translate those into the V9000.

To summarize: Similar interface, similar support interaction, and the way they can take knowledge that they previously had and be able to directly translate that to their all-flash array decision.

The most valuable features are the virtual capabilities that you get from the system and being able to move your data between tiers. We use that feature and we also optimize that with the SAN.

It has helped improve our organizational functionality with the ease of replacement of hardware. We use it a lot for that, for swapping in and out of old hardware to new hardware.

I can't really think of any specific improvements which I would like to see.

Stability has been great. Every time that we had a failed drive or a failed piece of hardware, it's been no problem. The systems have stayed up, with no problems at all.

We haven't scaled it to the maximum. It does scale quite a bit more than we've actually ever used it.

Technical support has been great. As far as responding, we usually get a resolution, or we have somebody calling us from higher up in the chain.

We're an IBM shop, so we've always been on some kind of IBM platform.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's pretty simple.

I would tell them, "The ease of use of the system. If you have a small storage team, then this is the platform for you. It's really easy to manage, really easy to use, and it doesn't take a lot of training." The biggest key to deciding on the product is the support and replacement capabilities.

We do replication and other things. For us, compression, deduplication, and the space saving features are important to us. The price to value ratio, for us, was good.

We are using replication for our backup solutions and it costs us less compared to other solutions. For space saving features, it definitely saves us in a virtual environment in terms of space and money.

There is a limit on the flash memory for fresh copy, i.e., a memory limit. So there are limits within the software, for buffering and then caching. We want to see those items increased.

There are a lot of bugs and they are still adding features in the product. The system has matured from 6.X to 7.X. It has improved a lot, but it still has room for more improvement.

This is not an enterprise solution, and our team doesn't sell that. That's how it is. So we shouldn't expect an enterprise level solution. Whatever is marketable for the segment serves a purpose.

You can scale out as much as you want. We use up to four in a cluster, four to six nodes, so it's working fine for us.

Other than bug fixes, the technical support is really good. If you actually hit a bug in your environment, it's definitely going to take time. It has to be escalated all the way to the third level and then to the engineers. It's a little bit challenging over there. But overall, it's okay.

We were using SVC and DS83. We are actually using that app, but for us, IBM Storwize V7000 was more cost effective in our environment. That's why we chose that specific product.

The setup is straightforward if you want to do a basic setup. But if you want to do customization specific to your environment, then you need to be more intimately involved with it.

We are not, at this point, considering other vendors. These days, it's specifically cost which is more important when selecting a vendor. We are not part of a financial environment or something like that where we would have a lot of penalties. So for us, as long as it is stable enough, we are okay. So for us, it is stability and then cost.

If they are cost conscious and have a release table solution, this is probably the best solution available.

The hardware is the best feature of the product. We have not seen many drive failures. The V9000 all-flash is constructed well.

It has not made us more efficient from a deployment standpoint. That is why we have been migrating to a hyper-converged solution.

• The overall code.
• The ability to have built-in reporting to understand the health of the array.
• Stability within the code.
• Clear upgrade paths for the code.
• Support is horrible. It takes weeks to get simple answers. We had a LUN down and support refused to get on a WebEx without the array being completely down.

We have had the system for over two years.

We currently have about 1PB worth of storage that spans IBM Storwize V5000, V7000, and V9000. This is across two datacenters.

We had stability issues as stated elsewhere.

The V9000 can only hold two shelves of flash, at which point you need new controllers.

Technical support is the worst in the industry, as mentioned elsewhere.

We previously used EMC. We switched based on cost.

Setup is not difficult.

Not worth the money.

EMC was evaluated.

There are far better products with better support for less cost.

The hardware itself is good, but the code that runs on it is not good at all. We have LUNs that will just go offline, and support has no clear answer. Each result is a code upgrade that does not resolve the problem. There is no built-in historical reporting. That is a costly add-on for an already overpriced system.

The cost was low when we purchased it.

It has not improved how we function.

ACLs should be more compatible with other NAS-based platforms. Some of the platform limitations need to be addressed.

I have used this product for two years.

We have had to bounce services several times over the past two years.

Technical support is horrible. IBM doesn't have much expertise with the product.

We were using EMC VNX.

The initial setup was fairly simple.

We migrated from EMC VNX.

We performed a new enterprise storage refresh and kicked out EMC.

We moved from EMC VMAX to Pure Storage All-Flash, and then got this product to replace EMC VNX.

DON'T use it unless you have a new and small NAS environment.

The easy GUI is the most valuable feature.

As I said When you Sync V7000 to Another V7000 that are located in my case more than 10km and with DWDM as dark fiber , first you need license for long distance from brocade.
Than you can change the buffer credit on the SAN switch to at least 49 . the point is that you need to test the parameter to get the best value .
This depend on the line you have and also check if there is any limitation from your DWDM Provider.

The problem is that if the buffer is not configured correctly this increase the latency because of this delay and the retransmit .

I have been using it for four years.

Remote copy performance impacts latency on the local storage: Must be configured with the correct buffer credit.

Customer service is very good.

Technical support is very good.

We previously used a different solution. We switched because Storwize v7000 is easy to manage.

A vendor team implemented it.

It has helped us to achieve a good response time for users.

The latency and speed of the array and also its ease of management were beneficial features.

The most valuable features were the performance of the array, i.e., very low latency and high IOPS. Plus, the management interface is very easy to use.

The several major crashes resulted in the entire weekends being lost in rebuilding the array and then for restoring the data. This was caused each time by a memory card failure and the array's inability to use a spare card. The array level RAID does not seem available.

It was great with TMS, however it has been terrible ever since IBM took over.

On one occasion our support renewal had not been processed, which we found out when we tried to get support during an array failure.

Previously, it was a great experience with RamSan-400.

The setup is very easy.

We implemented it in-house. It is very straightforward.

Since the takeover by IBM, the prices are much higher.

For resilience, you need to buy two of these devices per site as RAID only applies within in each memory card, i.e., the whole array is not resilient if a card fails. Failover would only be possible for a standby device.

The interface management is simple and intuitive. It has been replaced with other arrays successfully, that were larger in size but more slow. We were able to reduce the footprint of space used in GDCS and also the power consumption.

Speed (IOPS/second) – It is most vital for applications that need low latency and high speed for transferring the data. 

We have some large databases that are accessed at the same time by more than 10,000 users. In the past, it was on 15K disks. After we migrated them under the IBM Flash Array, the overall IOPS rate has increased by 30% and its latency is lower. The customers are very happy with the new solution.

The storage size vs the storage price needs to improve. The total storage capacity vs price is still quite high for the IBM Flash Array. It will sound better in the following years, as and when the price will be more accessible/economical.

In our environment we also have the XtremIO All-Flash Storage Array, but it has some scalability issues. That was the main reason why we focused on buying more IBM Flash Arrays.

We also use ServiceNow and SNIA Protocol; it’s present and working good with all the IBM products.

Since we have multiple IBM equipment in use, the installation process was straight forward.

Usually IBM doesn't sell the product directly, so each installation is carried out either with the vendor or via the GDC technicians. We as storage admins configure the storage system.

This product has the best quality, performance and cost.

We have some processes in our company that were cut in half by using the FlashSystem.

The most valuable feature is that is supports a high IOPS rate. We have a heavy workload. Some storage systems are not as good in terms of IOPS. We are using just the FlashSystems. It is virtualized using SVCs. We are using normal physical disks like Storwize for not-so-hot data. For hot data, we are using FlashSystems.

I think the performance of most of the application is improving. Our users now say that it's much better than it was before. The storage speed is perfect.

It has room for improvement in the area of stability. The firmware is upgraded frequently. We need to update it maybe three or four time a year because of the new features and bug fixes. On one side, it is good; but, on the other side, it is not good because we need to upgrade within one year or they will not support the firmware. It would be better if they supported what we already have for longer.

We sometimes had a problem with some bugs in FlashSystems. One time, one FlashSystem was burnt up. There was some smoke and the data was damaged. We saved it because we have redundancy in the cluster. At the cluster level, we make copies and replicate to the other site for disaster recovery situations.

We upgraded one FlashSystem two months ago because it was not full. We had to buy two modules, if I remember correctly. This was quite a complicated upgrade. IBM brought us new FlashSystems. Because it is virtualized, we moved the data from this one, upgraded it, and moved the data back; but it was done dynamically without any outage.

With the virtualized FlashSystem, we hope for improved response time, but the availability is improved. It is also flexible in that we could upgrade it dynamically, move the data, and so on.

I think the guys in our country are very clever in this. We can count on them. When we call them, they respond very fast and bring the new parts on time. The repair time is written into the SLA. Support is available 24/7 and I think the repair time is within 24 hours.

Before we were using IBM DS8000s. The application was consuming a lot of IOPS with a lot of hot data.

We needed a higher IOPS rate. We chose the FlashSystem because the response time needs to be very fast. When the people working on the application feel that the response time is not good, or there is not enough storage space for the amount of data they have, then we have a flexible enough infrastructure to dynamically upgrade them to the FlashSystem. We do this planning on a yearly basis. We design the infrastructure solution according to the project requirements. Sometimes, this requires an upgrade to the FlashSystem.

The initial setup we did ourselves because it is very simple. We did the direct mounting of racks and the hardware. The software design is virtualized using SVCs.

We considered other options, but I don’t think there were any other options with such intensive processing as the FlashSystem. We have a lot of tiers; and for other tiers, we have other vendors. I think that the IBM FlashSystem is the highest quality available in the market. For us, considering the whole solution, it was best for us.

We are very satisfied with IBM's prices, I think.

I would advise colleagues to use FlashSystems. It's a very good solution for us to achieve our goals.

When I evaluate vendors, for me, the historical relationship is very important, and definitely the communication. With IBM, we know the vendor well.

We used to provision storage from different devices. This requires a lot of manual effort to synchronize all hosts with each storage unit in an environment. IBM SAN Volume Controller helps manage all storage units from a single interface; while IBM FlashSystem provides high performance for our Tier 1 applications.

IBM FlashSystem has an easy to use GUI, similar to the IBM Storewize family, which make it one of the best flash storage systems in the market.

We use the IBM SAN Volume Controller to provide a single management interface for virtualized storage. It is easy to manage many storage devices from a single controller.

The two products should be unified and have a service processor to restart devices remotely. For example, NetApp has devices which include a service processor in nodes, which could be used to restart the nodes remotely. IBM should implement something like this.

Both products are basically for block-level access. There should be a series that also has a file level and block-level access together, which would make it unified.

The stability of the system is fine.

We did not have any problems with scalability.

We receive excellent technical support.

I currently use both NetApp and IBM. NetApp storage is cost efficient, but IBM is way ahead of NetApp in terms of block-level access.

The initial setup was easy.

Pricing can be considered as per market competition. As I am seeing less projects using IBM storage these days, the only reason seems to be the cost of support.

We had a contract with IBM, and now we are also using NetApp storage.

Go ahead and implement it. IBM storage provides you everything that you’ll need for a block-level architecture, as they have many different products which provides you with a variety of options to meet your needs.

IT Improve our TPS (transactions per seconds)

Flash disk with Easy Tier option

Same GUI as v7000

When you provision a datastore auto-format takes a long time .. to disable is you have to redo the whole process. this is a bit difficult if you want to make adjustments on the datastore

none so far.

Scale in scale out design was implemented

Customer Service:

We have a good relationship with IBM

Technical Support:

Highly skilled implementor

Straightforward

HP, EMC,

We have not had a good experience with this platform.

The installation and service was very good. But, the services to help us migrate our NAS data from an existing EMC VNX system has failed once already with ACL permissions issues specifically on how the V7000U NAS works. I have had to involved IBM Global Support by actually contacting high level Vice Presidents. As of January 26, 2016, we have not successfully migrated our NAS data.

It has not improved anything yet within our environment.

They could increase the maximum storage capacity so more disk shelves can be added.

We've had it for eight months, but still have not successfully migrated our NAS data yet. Also, it contains drives for AS/400 system and Exchange Archive data.

Software functionality issues that were not known until our NAS data migration failed. We hit further ACL Permissions issues as well.

We have performance and spiking issues of which IBM applied a work-around patch.

There have been no issues with the scalability.

6/10

It's average.

We switched to Pure Storage because of the way the system performs and does everything in 32K sizing. The IOPS are high and the support and customer server are exceptional.

Fairly simple as it took about two hours to rack and get on-line.

It was installed through one of our partners who did a good job.

We feel that the pricing is fair and the licensing process was easy.

We evaluated EMC (which we already had), DELL and HP.

The sales team was great as was the technical team. I now feel the EMC VNX and NetApp are both better NAS systems. If I had to do it over again, I would stayed with the EMC VNX for NAS.

The most valuable features of all the products are the high performance and micro latency.

I'm a Solutions Architect, so I don't have any from my company, but I do some projects for some clients where the unique performance and micro latency of the flash provides real- time information that is used to make strategic decisions.

Because the product is already mature, it doesn't need any improvement.

From about two years when IBM first bought FlashSystem. I knew some things about it when it was Texas Memory System,

I didn't have issues with models 900 and v9000, but on previous versions, like the 720, I had some questions.

It is stable, because it's use an ASIC in it's development. Therefore, that does the job and it doesn't have software at its core.

It has great scalability.

It's very good because IBM always make sure they have good customer service.

Not so good in my country because they only have a few people with great knowledge about FlashSystem.

I've never used another solution.

The initial setup was very simple, because IBM have a default interface for all their storage systems.

I did the implementation in-house.

It's a little expensive, so it's you need to have a good architect involved to explain it and make sure the project goes well.

Have good knowledge about the clients business.