We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and IBM XIV 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."The most valuable feature is reliability."
"No queuing and high ops, speed, and performance."
"The compression and deduplication features are the most valuable."
"The GUI is very easy and performance is also good."
"We've found the solution to be very stable so far."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"IBM's technical support do excellent work."
"The valuable features are high availability, compression, and a failover mechanism. It's a very highly available storage solution."
"IBM XIV's most valuable features are NVME, especially when it comes to de-duplication, compression, and responsiveness."
"As it spreads, a chuck of 1MB across the board means using all available spindles on the backend."
"The performance and robustness of the systems are very good."
"Installation is amazingly easy."
"Hands down, this is the easiest storage platform on the market to manage."
"Very easy to produce reporting data (Snaps). Very easy and fast for provisioning devices and Remote mirroring."
"I would like to have a larger disk. Right now, you can get 57 terabytes in a shelf. Once they get the larger disk and you get larger capacities, it'll be even better."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
"Events/log analysis tools."
"The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool."
"When you provision a datastore auto-format takes a long time"
"The interface of this solution could be improved."
"If you want to expand, you cannot expand the disc enclosure. You have to buy a total individual node. Sometimes, this is difficult because we are just looking for capacity and not a node."
"I would rather have a web GUI served directly from the unit, and a CLI accessible directly through SSH."
"Until the drive is replaced, the pool_resizing is locked."
"I encountered stability (performance) issues during enclosure or disk rebuild. Also some power supply issues due to malfunctions of circuits. Sometimes "internal" Snap sessions hang and consume pool capacity."
"The change form synchronous mirroring to asynchronous (and vice versa) without reconfiguration from scratch would be helpful."
"This product was not a good fit for our organization as we have a ton of latency sensitive applications and XIV was not able to keep up with IO + latency demand."
"IBM XIV's scalability is adequate for our requirements, but because it's modular, you can't scale to larger requirements."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 2nd in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 106 reviews while IBM XIV is ranked 10th in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 6 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while IBM XIV is rated 7.6. 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 IBM XIV writes "Using it behind the SAN volume controller, latency is predictable and it is reliable". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF, whereas IBM XIV is most compared with . See our IBM FlashSystem vs. IBM XIV 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.
