In my opinion, there should be improvements in how to get and filter logs. However, this is not a frequent need because they have great support that offers quick and knowledgeable assistance. Otherwise, we do not encounter many issues with this solution.
One area where the solution could improve is its software platform. Many customers have expressed dissatisfaction with the software running on Microsoft Windows. Although an attempt was made to develop a Linux version, that project did not advance, and it remains a concern for some users. The price could be an obstacle for some customers, especially considering the additional costs for hardware and storage.
The product can be improved by making better filters to search event logs. When everybody shows the last event at the top of their board, San Symphony does it at the bottom, and sometimes, we don't see an alert that needs to be checked. The service is still available every day and at every time of the day, but only in English. For customers or technicians that don't speak and understand English, it could be great to have other languages support, all the more so given the number of countries in which SanSymphony is used.
I see potential here in the support of NVMeoF, both as a target and in the backend. In addition, there should be new ways to improve the redundancy of the pools created with it - e.g. through extended RAID functionality (RAID5 or RAID6) or erasure coding. Management could be improved. The management console sometimes reacts very slowly. In the area of the HCI solution, I could imagine a different mode of operation. For example, a group of servers form a pool in which the data can be stored. Protection could also be guaranteed here via replication and erasure coding.
I would like to see SMPA (Shared Multi-Port Array) technology developed with the aim of allowing a configuration identical to other storage arrays: instead of having a single storage controller per site, competing arrays all have 2 controllers for redundancy and securing data access (3Par, Unity, MSA, etc.) It would be necessary to automate the operation of two nodes managing the same storage per site and no longer be obliged to manage it by a system of scripts which must be revalidated each time the product is updated.
The main problem is there is no DataCore OS itself; there is nothing better than one complete solution from one solution provider. We had a lot of issues. It was really disappointing to see that DataCore blamed Microsoft for the problems, Microsoft blamed Lenovo hardware, and Lenovo blamed Datacore. DataCore should have an OS specifically designed and optimized for managing storage workloads. Only the storage system should have access to encryption and authentication mechanisms to safeguard stored data. The future DC system should be integrated with the DC Hardware, this will enhances interoperability and simplifies the deployment and management of all storage products.
The solution is constantly evolving. Recently, deduplication and compression have been further improved to meet customer needs, and updates are easily implemented without stopping production. The update assistant checks the state of health before using good practices, during checks that the data is still presented for service continuity, and afterward, if the actions carried out are indeed active. Technical support is truly available even without a production incident. This is really essential right now.
We have been using this product for a while now. And we have to say that we are still impressed. We need no more features. Our company needs no added or new features; it’s the best solution as it is at the moment. The product is (for our implementation) stable and secure. We highly recommend the solution as it is. Use it how it is, and you will see how perfectly it is working. I'd like to see the company make the renewal of the software cheaper.
I found it a little unnecessary to have to rename the configurations within the graphics console in order to have unique names. We're having to rename the network ports in the graphical interface even if this operation had already been done at the operating system level. There is also a web interface; however, at the moment, it does not have all the features of the standard graphical interface. It would be convenient to have all the features there too. It would be useful to also integrate commands or scripts for optimizing the ISCSI configuration into the setup; at the moment, it is a separate script that needs to be launched.
DataCore SANsymphony should integrate file servers at a good price into the solution. The licensing is expensive, and you cannot manage a big file server with DataCore SANsymphony without paying a lot of money. NetApp is easier to sell, and we have had projects where NetApp was a lot cheaper than DataCore. Our customers want their block storage to be fast, redundant, and highly available. You also might have a large fire storage for data that the customer does not need to access urgently. When you want to enclose this in the DataCore architecture, you have to pay the full amount of money as with block storage, which can be very expensive. Sometimes, it is very expensive to use DataCore SANsymphony.
Technical Director at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
User
2022-11-05T14:20:00Z
Nov 5, 2022
It's difficult to say if something is missing in this solution. Maybe we'd like to manage the raid on the disk directly in SanSymphony. We essentially use RAID5 for our SAS disk and SSD, and now we need to create this RAID on the raid card. If we could bypass this card, we could really manage all the storage from the solution, which would be ideal. The graphical interface needs to be improved. We have noticed some bugs in it. A vCenter integration just appeared in the last version. However, we have only some functions within it. I am confident that many new things will arrive in the next few months to make it more robust.
If it could integrate to a cloud gateway, then we could carry it directly to storage, instead of having middleware in between the storage and the cloud. It's a very expensive solution, and the licensing costs should be lower.
The graphical interface is not always very stable. In a dense infrastructure with many volumes and disks, slowness and GUI crashes can be observed. The current graphical interface is ported to a web interface and not all features are available yet. The compression and deduplication features are not functional for a production environment. This feature is probably the only one missing compared to other SAN manufacturers. It is under development, however, it is not yet reliable enough for use in a critical environment.
Datacenter Architect, Sen. Systemadministrator, virt. environment Solution Architect at AKF Leasing GmbH & Co KG
User
2022-03-04T09:31:00Z
Mar 4, 2022
It would be ideal if they were providing archive licensing with the ability to create a second pool on existing storage nodes. Maybe they could do it with limited max IO and/or without auto-tiering capabilities for the archive pool - to avoid interference with the performance pool.
One area the company can improve upon is the use of other software. Right now, the version used is run on Microsoft Windows Server. Having a Linux version or even an appliance would be better as it would eliminate the use of additional licensing for another piece of hardware. While the Windows server has gotten more reliable, I would like it more if it would not be dependent on Microsoft Windows Servers. Improving the GUI would be another feature where they could add to the software. They should make it more intuitive by simplifying the layout.
Sales Manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2022-02-22T08:45:00Z
Feb 22, 2022
One limitation of this solution is that it's Windows-based, e.g. one requirement to install DataCore SANsymphony SDS is putting it on a Windows server machine. It relies on Windows and that is a limitation because we have some customers who are looking for non Windows systems. What we'd like to see in the future is for this software to support more operating systems.
The so-called hyperconverged infrastructure edition, sometimes knows as vSan, should be addressed. It is one component of the solution. Yet, DataCore is less competitive than certain other manufacturers, such as EMC, Cisco, and VMware vSan. It is competitive when it comes to a general purpose software defined storage solution. As such, a hyperconverged infrastructure solution could be improved. The solution could be better packaged and marketed. When it comes to a simple 2 node cluster business continuity solution for SMB companies, the downtime can be expensive.
SANsymphony is missing some features that vSAN has. For example, vSAN has a special feature called continuous data protection. It provides the ability to go back in time to a given moment. You can see what was on your disk in the past up to two weeks. That's a great feature because ransomware attacks are increasingly common, and that provides you some kind of protection.
We would like to see a real "sexy" storage dashboard with capacity, usage, performance, and error tracking. The cloud reporting interface is quite poor compared to other vendors. We are far from an HPE Infosight, for example. Using a classic storage array constructor allows clients to have a single point of contact in case of an issue. With DataCore, we have to deal with them for the software part and with the hardware vendor for the hardware part. Sometimes, in a complex environment, we have to deal with storage array vendors, servers vendors, and software vendors and that can be exhausting.
For an upcoming release, I would like to see a function that can manage the storage of multiple Datacore servers in a kind of "erasure coding". This would simplify scaling and make SSY more competitive with other providers. NVMeoF should be implemented. This protocol will play a major role in storage infrastructure in the future. Network protocols are becoming increasingly important. For future projects, protocols such as RoCE should be implemented. Especially in LAN infrastructures from 25G, a simpler and high-performance SAN infrastructure could be built here. The costs should be lower compared to Fibre Channel. Improving support will be very difficult as it is already one of the best in the IT world.
Datacore is developing a new WebUI with new dashboards. It is a good idea as the classic GUI is lacking dashboards. We need a better view to analyze the auto-tiering feature (like in DIS) to easier decide what type of storage we need to add. The current view in the GUI is too simple and we cannot see clearly cold data or hot data. You can report all you want. There are a lot of counters usable in the console. However, there are too many. They need to create some pre-defined graphs or reports.
There's very little that I can find in their software that I would say needs to be improved. Sometimes the updates are too frequent, where just as we finish updating all of our sites, another update comes out. The de-dup console is not yet integrated inside the main SANsymphony console. They are working on it but it's not there yet. While their console allows you to connect to each of the nodes without closing the interface, you have to log out and back in when you switch between different storage server groups. It would be nice if they had an interface more like vCenter, where you see all of the server groups in a list and can just click on each group. It would be nice to be able to see multiple groups at the same time. Having more of an Enterprise approach (v/s a local storage cluster) view would provide better management of the environment. For example, their current reports can only be run for each storage server group. There is currently not a way to run the same reports or look at performance across the enterprise (only the local site). Having an enterprise "Storage Dashboard" that can show capacity, usage, performance, and any issues would be very beneficial. Currently, DataCore does not have this. They recently added a web-based dashboard called DataCore Insight Services (DIS) to their product. However, you will need to be on their subscription-based model v/s their traditional yearly maintenance-based model. Also, the current DIS product does not span multiple storage groups and is in its infancy and is still very rudimentary in nature. However, knowing DataCore's track record for fast, innovative development, I know it won't be long before they get it right.
Experience peace of mind with DataCore SANsymphony, the ultimate software-defined storage solution alleviating storage management challenges. Say goodbye to the complexities of managing different storage tiers and disruptions with SANsymphony's block-level storage virtualization technology, empowering you to automate capacity provisioning and data placement across diverse storage environments including SAN, DAS, HCI, and JBOD. Break down silos, control data placement, meet business continuity...
In my opinion, there should be improvements in how to get and filter logs. However, this is not a frequent need because they have great support that offers quick and knowledgeable assistance. Otherwise, we do not encounter many issues with this solution.
One area where the solution could improve is its software platform. Many customers have expressed dissatisfaction with the software running on Microsoft Windows. Although an attempt was made to develop a Linux version, that project did not advance, and it remains a concern for some users. The price could be an obstacle for some customers, especially considering the additional costs for hardware and storage.
The product can be improved by making better filters to search event logs. When everybody shows the last event at the top of their board, San Symphony does it at the bottom, and sometimes, we don't see an alert that needs to be checked. The service is still available every day and at every time of the day, but only in English. For customers or technicians that don't speak and understand English, it could be great to have other languages support, all the more so given the number of countries in which SanSymphony is used.
I see potential here in the support of NVMeoF, both as a target and in the backend. In addition, there should be new ways to improve the redundancy of the pools created with it - e.g. through extended RAID functionality (RAID5 or RAID6) or erasure coding. Management could be improved. The management console sometimes reacts very slowly. In the area of the HCI solution, I could imagine a different mode of operation. For example, a group of servers form a pool in which the data can be stored. Protection could also be guaranteed here via replication and erasure coding.
I would like to see SMPA (Shared Multi-Port Array) technology developed with the aim of allowing a configuration identical to other storage arrays: instead of having a single storage controller per site, competing arrays all have 2 controllers for redundancy and securing data access (3Par, Unity, MSA, etc.) It would be necessary to automate the operation of two nodes managing the same storage per site and no longer be obliged to manage it by a system of scripts which must be revalidated each time the product is updated.
The main problem is there is no DataCore OS itself; there is nothing better than one complete solution from one solution provider. We had a lot of issues. It was really disappointing to see that DataCore blamed Microsoft for the problems, Microsoft blamed Lenovo hardware, and Lenovo blamed Datacore. DataCore should have an OS specifically designed and optimized for managing storage workloads. Only the storage system should have access to encryption and authentication mechanisms to safeguard stored data. The future DC system should be integrated with the DC Hardware, this will enhances interoperability and simplifies the deployment and management of all storage products.
The solution is constantly evolving. Recently, deduplication and compression have been further improved to meet customer needs, and updates are easily implemented without stopping production. The update assistant checks the state of health before using good practices, during checks that the data is still presented for service continuity, and afterward, if the actions carried out are indeed active. Technical support is truly available even without a production incident. This is really essential right now.
We have been using this product for a while now. And we have to say that we are still impressed. We need no more features. Our company needs no added or new features; it’s the best solution as it is at the moment. The product is (for our implementation) stable and secure. We highly recommend the solution as it is. Use it how it is, and you will see how perfectly it is working. I'd like to see the company make the renewal of the software cheaper.
I found it a little unnecessary to have to rename the configurations within the graphics console in order to have unique names. We're having to rename the network ports in the graphical interface even if this operation had already been done at the operating system level. There is also a web interface; however, at the moment, it does not have all the features of the standard graphical interface. It would be convenient to have all the features there too. It would be useful to also integrate commands or scripts for optimizing the ISCSI configuration into the setup; at the moment, it is a separate script that needs to be launched.
DataCore SANsymphony should integrate file servers at a good price into the solution. The licensing is expensive, and you cannot manage a big file server with DataCore SANsymphony without paying a lot of money. NetApp is easier to sell, and we have had projects where NetApp was a lot cheaper than DataCore. Our customers want their block storage to be fast, redundant, and highly available. You also might have a large fire storage for data that the customer does not need to access urgently. When you want to enclose this in the DataCore architecture, you have to pay the full amount of money as with block storage, which can be very expensive. Sometimes, it is very expensive to use DataCore SANsymphony.
The solution’s interface and ability to manage the data processes could be better.
There is room for improvement in the graphical interface.
It's difficult to say if something is missing in this solution. Maybe we'd like to manage the raid on the disk directly in SanSymphony. We essentially use RAID5 for our SAS disk and SSD, and now we need to create this RAID on the raid card. If we could bypass this card, we could really manage all the storage from the solution, which would be ideal. The graphical interface needs to be improved. We have noticed some bugs in it. A vCenter integration just appeared in the last version. However, we have only some functions within it. I am confident that many new things will arrive in the next few months to make it more robust.
If it could integrate to a cloud gateway, then we could carry it directly to storage, instead of having middleware in between the storage and the cloud. It's a very expensive solution, and the licensing costs should be lower.
The graphical interface is not always very stable. In a dense infrastructure with many volumes and disks, slowness and GUI crashes can be observed. The current graphical interface is ported to a web interface and not all features are available yet. The compression and deduplication features are not functional for a production environment. This feature is probably the only one missing compared to other SAN manufacturers. It is under development, however, it is not yet reliable enough for use in a critical environment.
It would be ideal if they were providing archive licensing with the ability to create a second pool on existing storage nodes. Maybe they could do it with limited max IO and/or without auto-tiering capabilities for the archive pool - to avoid interference with the performance pool.
One area the company can improve upon is the use of other software. Right now, the version used is run on Microsoft Windows Server. Having a Linux version or even an appliance would be better as it would eliminate the use of additional licensing for another piece of hardware. While the Windows server has gotten more reliable, I would like it more if it would not be dependent on Microsoft Windows Servers. Improving the GUI would be another feature where they could add to the software. They should make it more intuitive by simplifying the layout.
One limitation of this solution is that it's Windows-based, e.g. one requirement to install DataCore SANsymphony SDS is putting it on a Windows server machine. It relies on Windows and that is a limitation because we have some customers who are looking for non Windows systems. What we'd like to see in the future is for this software to support more operating systems.
The so-called hyperconverged infrastructure edition, sometimes knows as vSan, should be addressed. It is one component of the solution. Yet, DataCore is less competitive than certain other manufacturers, such as EMC, Cisco, and VMware vSan. It is competitive when it comes to a general purpose software defined storage solution. As such, a hyperconverged infrastructure solution could be improved. The solution could be better packaged and marketed. When it comes to a simple 2 node cluster business continuity solution for SMB companies, the downtime can be expensive.
SANsymphony is missing some features that vSAN has. For example, vSAN has a special feature called continuous data protection. It provides the ability to go back in time to a given moment. You can see what was on your disk in the past up to two weeks. That's a great feature because ransomware attacks are increasingly common, and that provides you some kind of protection.
We would like to see a real "sexy" storage dashboard with capacity, usage, performance, and error tracking. The cloud reporting interface is quite poor compared to other vendors. We are far from an HPE Infosight, for example. Using a classic storage array constructor allows clients to have a single point of contact in case of an issue. With DataCore, we have to deal with them for the software part and with the hardware vendor for the hardware part. Sometimes, in a complex environment, we have to deal with storage array vendors, servers vendors, and software vendors and that can be exhausting.
For an upcoming release, I would like to see a function that can manage the storage of multiple Datacore servers in a kind of "erasure coding". This would simplify scaling and make SSY more competitive with other providers. NVMeoF should be implemented. This protocol will play a major role in storage infrastructure in the future. Network protocols are becoming increasingly important. For future projects, protocols such as RoCE should be implemented. Especially in LAN infrastructures from 25G, a simpler and high-performance SAN infrastructure could be built here. The costs should be lower compared to Fibre Channel. Improving support will be very difficult as it is already one of the best in the IT world.
Datacore is developing a new WebUI with new dashboards. It is a good idea as the classic GUI is lacking dashboards. We need a better view to analyze the auto-tiering feature (like in DIS) to easier decide what type of storage we need to add. The current view in the GUI is too simple and we cannot see clearly cold data or hot data. You can report all you want. There are a lot of counters usable in the console. However, there are too many. They need to create some pre-defined graphs or reports.
Problem detection could be easier. It should help customers identify problems very quickly because it's not easy to analyze on the platform today.
There's very little that I can find in their software that I would say needs to be improved. Sometimes the updates are too frequent, where just as we finish updating all of our sites, another update comes out. The de-dup console is not yet integrated inside the main SANsymphony console. They are working on it but it's not there yet. While their console allows you to connect to each of the nodes without closing the interface, you have to log out and back in when you switch between different storage server groups. It would be nice if they had an interface more like vCenter, where you see all of the server groups in a list and can just click on each group. It would be nice to be able to see multiple groups at the same time. Having more of an Enterprise approach (v/s a local storage cluster) view would provide better management of the environment. For example, their current reports can only be run for each storage server group. There is currently not a way to run the same reports or look at performance across the enterprise (only the local site). Having an enterprise "Storage Dashboard" that can show capacity, usage, performance, and any issues would be very beneficial. Currently, DataCore does not have this. They recently added a web-based dashboard called DataCore Insight Services (DIS) to their product. However, you will need to be on their subscription-based model v/s their traditional yearly maintenance-based model. Also, the current DIS product does not span multiple storage groups and is in its infancy and is still very rudimentary in nature. However, knowing DataCore's track record for fast, innovative development, I know it won't be long before they get it right.