We performed a comparison between IBM Spectrum Scale and IBM Spectrum Virtualize based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The high performance of the solution is its most valuable aspect. If you compare it to other storage solutions, it's much better."
"Technical support has been very helpful. They provide us with pretty good solutions that we can implement moving forward."
"GPFS monitoring is the best feature."
"Allows us to share files across multiple environments."
"It has been pretty reliable throughout the years. As far as capacity is concerned, it can handle most heavy loads."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The profile share is a valuable feature."
"It makes our file system sharing a lot easier, even across different continents. We have had file systems shared across different continents with no performance degradation."
"We acquire companies (and things), so we end up with odd hardware. We bring it behind the SVC and it allows us to migrate stuff off of it seamlessly. SVC can also cover up a host of defects of the underlying storage."
"It is a single pane of glass management interface, so once the storage is allocated to SVC, they only have one place to go to manage it for everything."
"Although the GUI from the XIV was used (in my view), IBM has polished and refined the GUI providing a pleasant and easy to navigate GUI experience."
"One of the main features of Spectrum Virtualize is it virtualizes the servers from the storage. We have a very large infrastructure. A major advantage is when you get the aged storage arrays and you have to replace all of those."
"The most valuable features are the simplicity of use, the flexibility, and the options included. I mean, it's just a big time saver."
"It provides transparency, because of its advanced copy features."
"I like that it can virtualize more than three hundred storage providers."
"It's got full features, so we can compress volumes. We can do thin volumes and we can change them on the fly."
"Maybe it needs integration with HA."
"It would be helpful if there was a graphical user interface that could walk you through the deployment process. The instructions surrounding setup aren't the best. They need to be more step-by-step."
"The main issue that we have now is with the encryption. They want to use more metrics in encryption, which is not working very well."
"We do have some issues where Spectrum Scale does not work as expected. We have seen our Spectrum Scale servers go down unexpectedly, but because we have a cluster, it does not take out the entire organization."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"Integration with other vendors is not available."
"Making it a little easier to add bad file sets would help. There is a transition to how you add storage and how you add a file set, so making that a little smoother would probably be my recommendation."
"They should probably simply the Red Hat implementation portion. This portion was not as straightforward as I would like it to be."
"NBME support and support for a higher Fibre Channel lengths could be improved, but those are already on the roadmap."
"Adding features for data deduplication is one area of improvement."
"I hate I/O groups. If you start swapping I/O groups, they can be potentially risky. If they could get rid of the whole I/O group principle, the risk is not there anymore. I understand the fundamental thing about I/O groups, but they are risky."
"The integration would be an option that we would like, but I understand that's not how it's going to be implemented."
"There are big arrays now, and if a customer wants add more disks to it, you have to have another array. Adding disks to existing arrays is one of the most demanded things from our customers."
"In general, the migration is complicated. Though, it is case-by-case."
"I already discussed possible improvements with some of the guys from Hearnsley. One of our frustrations is when you go to expand volumes in a global mirror environment, you have to stop everything in order to expand. So that's one of the things."
"The Storwize port is not so stable."
IBM Spectrum Scale is ranked 7th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 10 reviews while IBM Spectrum Virtualize is ranked 14th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 35 reviews. IBM Spectrum Scale is rated 8.4, while IBM Spectrum Virtualize is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM Spectrum Scale writes "A stable solution with valuable profile-sharing features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Spectrum Virtualize writes "Robust, stable, with good performance, and easy to implement". IBM Spectrum Scale is most compared with Red Hat Ceph Storage, Portworx Enterprise, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, DDN IME and IBM Spectrum Accelerate, whereas IBM Spectrum Virtualize is most compared with Dell VPLEX, VMware vSAN, VxRail, DataCore SANsymphony and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP. See our IBM Spectrum Scale vs. IBM Spectrum Virtualize report.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors, best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors, and best Cloud Software Defined Storage vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined Storage (SDS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
