We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and Panasas ActiveStor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."At the FlashSystem level, customers are especially fond of multi-tier and distributed rate systems, particularly the dynamic rate six arrays."
"The solution is very easy to configure and use."
"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 all-flash storage has tier replication capabilities."
"The most valuable features of IBM FlashSystem are performance and security."
"Flash disk with Easy Tier option"
"Ability to manage third-party arrays and virtualise them: One screen to control multiple arrays. Simplified administration."
"The solution is scalable and has varying degrees of scalability."
"I am impressed with the tool's performance and bandwidth."
"We've found the product to be quite flexible."
"Product support is restricted to IBM only. It must be decentralized to IBM partners as well."
"The GUI for monitoring performance metrics could provide better visibility. For example, it doesn't let me segregate the IOPS per volume."
"Sometimes the performance is effective but it gets resolved in the process."
"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?"
"The technical support in my region is satisfactory but it could improve. Support is very important for customers and downtime is very critical for us. We would like onsite or complete technical support which can help us to minimize our downtime or if problems occur."
"Our customers have raised concerns about the limitations of the FlashSystem 5200 and 7300, which only offer a 32-gigabyte connection."
"The solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel."
"In IBM FlashSystem, data reduction is an area with shortcomings where improvements can be made in the future."
"We have received complaints from customers that the tool is not easy to use. The tool's local technical service is slow. The solution is good for Linux customers and not for customers with other operating systems like Windows. The solution should provide storage without client software integration."
"The solution is quite expensive."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while Panasas ActiveStor is ranked 14th in NAS with 2 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while Panasas ActiveStor is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Panasas ActiveStor writes "A stable solution with good performance and bandwidth". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF, whereas Panasas ActiveStor is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and NetApp FAS Series. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. Panasas ActiveStor report.
See our list of best NAS vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.
