Manager of Platform Software at a healthcare company with 51-200 employees
MSP
2021-03-22T09:50:00Z
Mar 22, 2021
In our current configuration, we can only run the line controllers in high availability, active-standby mode, whereas we would like to see active-active implemented. That would get us more performance with a given number of line cards. Their global namespace support is coming, and I believe it is based on NFS 4.1. We have a mix of both Linux and Windows usage in the company, and getting an NFS 4.1 client with Windows currently is difficult because I don't think that's supported. This is not an issue with the Pavilion product directly, versus more of the general environment. We would essentially like to see a Windows NFS 4.1 client supported so that we can take advantage of the Pavilion feature from both platforms. Having a little more ease of use with the NFS global namespace vis-a-vis Windows would be an improvement.
Manager of Production Systems at a media company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-03-18T09:46:00Z
Mar 18, 2021
For us, in terms of what is very important, is keeping pace with the evolution of the new standards. For example, as PCI Express 4.0 becomes more ubiquitous, moving into PCI Express 5 is important. Having an architecture that can truly utilize 200-gig or maybe 400-gig networking, or having storage densities in line with what we would expect in a Gen 4, Gen 5 PCI Express, are things that as they come available, I hope that the vendor is looking at that going into the future. We need this because we're really at the point where our workloads are about to explode outwards. I would like to see the management layer improved. HyperOS 3.0 is excellent, and this is important because one of the things that we looked at in the beginning, before HyperOS 3.0 had been released, was that this is an excellent technology and it's very versatile, but it would be great if we could run certain things on this box. It would be helpful if there were more ways to consume the APIs or if there were some ways to get into the hardware, get into the functionality of the system programmatically, or have flexibility where, for example, we just need to do quick namespaces, or something similar. We don't want to deploy an entire secondary storage layer on top of this. Rather, we just want to run something quick. Having a containerized system or having some sort of first-party support for basic storage functionality, or basic extensibility would be excellent for us. In many ways, these boxes are very malleable. It's a blank slate, but having a little more in terms of, if you want more directed use of it, having some way to really get at that, would be helpful.
Network Manager at a transportation company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2021-03-10T22:21:00Z
Mar 10, 2021
The rail system that Pavilion uses to mount up into a standard Dell or APC cabinet extends further back than normal rails, and they cover up the zero PDU slot. So, I don't like the rail system that comes with the device. That is my biggest complaint.
Learn what your peers think about Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2025.
Pavilion HyperParallel Data Platform
The Pavilion HyperParallel Data Platform™ dramatically accelerates what organizations achieve by delivering universally unmatched storage performance, in an incredibly compact solution while reducing data center costs and complexity. Unrivaled flexibility for multiple data types and protocols, along with broad ecosystem integration, ensure that every customer has choice and control.
What is the Pavilion HyperParallel Data Platform
The Pavilion...
In our current configuration, we can only run the line controllers in high availability, active-standby mode, whereas we would like to see active-active implemented. That would get us more performance with a given number of line cards. Their global namespace support is coming, and I believe it is based on NFS 4.1. We have a mix of both Linux and Windows usage in the company, and getting an NFS 4.1 client with Windows currently is difficult because I don't think that's supported. This is not an issue with the Pavilion product directly, versus more of the general environment. We would essentially like to see a Windows NFS 4.1 client supported so that we can take advantage of the Pavilion feature from both platforms. Having a little more ease of use with the NFS global namespace vis-a-vis Windows would be an improvement.
For us, in terms of what is very important, is keeping pace with the evolution of the new standards. For example, as PCI Express 4.0 becomes more ubiquitous, moving into PCI Express 5 is important. Having an architecture that can truly utilize 200-gig or maybe 400-gig networking, or having storage densities in line with what we would expect in a Gen 4, Gen 5 PCI Express, are things that as they come available, I hope that the vendor is looking at that going into the future. We need this because we're really at the point where our workloads are about to explode outwards. I would like to see the management layer improved. HyperOS 3.0 is excellent, and this is important because one of the things that we looked at in the beginning, before HyperOS 3.0 had been released, was that this is an excellent technology and it's very versatile, but it would be great if we could run certain things on this box. It would be helpful if there were more ways to consume the APIs or if there were some ways to get into the hardware, get into the functionality of the system programmatically, or have flexibility where, for example, we just need to do quick namespaces, or something similar. We don't want to deploy an entire secondary storage layer on top of this. Rather, we just want to run something quick. Having a containerized system or having some sort of first-party support for basic storage functionality, or basic extensibility would be excellent for us. In many ways, these boxes are very malleable. It's a blank slate, but having a little more in terms of, if you want more directed use of it, having some way to really get at that, would be helpful.
The rail system that Pavilion uses to mount up into a standard Dell or APC cabinet extends further back than normal rails, and they cover up the zero PDU slot. So, I don't like the rail system that comes with the device. That is my biggest complaint.