We performed a comparison between HPE EVA and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."HPE has reliable support for HDD replacement."
"The solution's most valuable feature is storage provisioning, which allows me to easily provision the disk space on the servers."
"It is very stable."
"There have been no fail-stop failures for the last five years."
"The technical support for this solution is good. They used to help us when the motherboard of Power Systems broke. Their response times are really fast."
"The solution allows for easy migrations from previous products or vendors via its embedded storage virtualization function."
"The all-flash storage has tier replication capabilities."
"It's a mature product. It's like a BMW that evolves consistently."
"The performance of IBM FlashSystem is very good. The new technology and high throughput have given us more confidence in the solution. The management of the system has improved and we can control the monitoring system alerts and multiple FlashSystems with the Enterprise Cloud Edition, which is free. The migration of recently stored data to a new flash is much easier. You can move your data because you can utilize it externally."
"The storage system is one of the best in the world."
"Ability to manage third-party arrays and virtualise them: One screen to control multiple arrays. Simplified administration."
"Speed (IOPS/second) – It is most vital for applications that need low latency and high speed for transferring the data."
"Performance could probably be improve with faster controllers, but it is already an old device. We do have performance problems now, but it is a rather old device, so we have what we have."
"I faced some issues during the disk replacement process in HPE EVA."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
"We use some open-source tools for monitoring, such as Grafana and it should be bundled along with IBM FlashSystem."
"The GUI for monitoring performance metrics could provide better visibility. For example, it doesn't let me segregate the IOPS per volume."
"Events/log analysis tools."
"In the next release having the next level of high-speed performance would be great."
"The solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel."
"The pricing could be improved, but I think it's getting better and better with each version. IBM needs to implement NAS storage again, as this is a big flaw. Dell EMC is very good at this and if you compared them based on NAS storage, Dell EMC would win right away. IBM's solution for NAS storage is very complicated. We don't have a storage box that provides file sharing from itself, we have to put software on it and go through a whole complicated process. It should be simplified."
HPE EVA is ranked 8th in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 4 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 2nd in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 106 reviews. HPE EVA is rated 8.6, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HPE EVA writes "Has the ability to automatically deal with faulty disks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". HPE EVA is most compared with HPE 3PAR StoreServ and HPE StorageWorks MSA, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF. See our HPE EVA vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors.
We monitor all Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) 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.
