We performed a comparison between HPE 3PAR StoreServ and NetApp FAS Series 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."Technical support is excellent. I've had very good responses from technical support. We had a couple of cases where we needed support. Some of the communications were purely over email and some has been an actual call to the service desk."
"Before we used Pure Storage it took 93 days of employees who run the database to back up and restore databases. The scale of deployment basically went from several days to a few minutes."
"There was a dramatic improvement in operating costs just as a result of the environmentals and space, let alone the cost of the unit itself."
"Data deduplication is one feature I found to be the most valuable in the tool...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"All updates, upgrades, and hardware work are all performed on-line with no impact."
"It upgrades in place which means we'll be using it well into the future."
"The predictive performance analytics are good."
"The speed is the most valuable feature, along with the ease of getting it connected. We were able to get it online in less than a day."
"It is worry-free. I do not have to sit there and tend it."
"The optimization features move chunklets or hot spots to faster drives."
"Stability is awesome. Its performance has been steady and it stays up."
"The technical support has been fantastic."
"Technical support for both 3PAR and Dell EMC in my country, Iran, is very difficult because we are under sanctions."
"Remote-copy provides high availability and disaster recovery for the connected clients."
"We use a virtual domain in 3PAR and we can create individual pools where clients are able to manage their own resources, instead of we, as storage admin, getting involved in that."
"The InfoSight feature helps us with troubleshooting problems in our environment."
"The product is flexible."
"Reliable storage solution with an easy setup. It has high availability and makes single file restoration easy. It also has good stability and scalability."
"Better performance and lower costs."
"Flexible and reliable storage solution with multiple features such as cloning, replication, and deduplication. Data migration can be done without any performance implications on the production systems."
"Using the built-in Snapshots and SnapMirror technology, we were able to have better working data protection locally and off-site."
"Compression of the backup Oracle by RMAN on NFS saves space 5:1."
"End-users like that they can rely on the Snapshot technology so they can do their restores themselves."
"The file sharing feature is most valuable."
"The credentials on the iSCSI interface are only available to type in with the Chrome browser, and not with the Firefox browser."
"FlashArray's capacity for forecasting should be improved because it needs to be a bit more current. I think it's bundled with the deduplication and other compression factors. We need more user interfaces for forecasting in this software and more interfaces need to be integrated with this array management tool."
"I recognize it's a difficult challenge, but I would like to see them make the pricing more reasonable."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level. Those issues are related to replication. They need to resolve those issues, which I have already highlighted to the Pure team. Additionally, there are some issues in the active cluster that could improve."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"Had some issues with Purity not being entirely compatible with VMware ESXi."
"The way Pure Storage does the controller storage warranty or replacement has been an issue for some people who just replace the controllers every couple of years, and that's where some of the confusion with pricing and support has come in. They should be clear on the way the controller replacements happen, as it is important to know whether or not you can get a good return on them, because it can be a little confusing."
"I would rate this solution an eight because we have had outages. The commit times went very high in the database. The whole array went down so our customers were down for around eight hours. This was a very big outage which could have been our fault because we didn't do the upgrade in time."
"The speed of the hard disk could be better. The performance is the main issue for us. The performance of the VMs is not comparable to desktop machines, for instance, and we might need another solution to improve the performance. Other than that, we don't have any issues. We already have a great part of storage with SSDs, and the performance is not as good as I expected."
"We do see room for improvement, especially in regard to expanding the defined storage areas."
"I would like to see compatibility with NVMe."
"I would like to have more details on alerting. It is not real granular right now. What It gives you is sort of basic, and we can't do a lot of tweaking on our own. We would like to be able to tweak some of the alerts for our team."
"I want artificial intelligence. I don't want anybody from my team to touch it anymore. I want the AI to do everything."
"The onsite techs have caused outages."
"The interface to manage it could be improved. I was looking at OneView. Something basic like that should be available with the 3PAR. OneView has all the bells and whistles, all the features, but I think something basic and similar to that should be come with the 3PAR, at least for monitoring managing it."
"Would like to see some management functions through a web interface."
"I would like to see less latency and higher IOPS."
"The solution can improve on the replication features."
"Technical support needs to be improved, as there are no longer partners in our country."
"No other area for improvement comes to mind other than its price. Making the price more attractive will help this solution have a bigger market share."
"We have some experience with older equipment end-of-life. For example, when warranty support stops or updates stop – it can be frustrating. Not all clients can buy a new filer every year or two, and NetApp ending support a bit quickly can be a concern."
"The high cost of the product is an area of concern, so from an improvement perspective, the tool needs to be made cheaper."
"It's not a cheap system. It is very expensive. The pricing has been ridiculous every time that we had to renew the support."
"There is room for improvement in deployment and configuration processes."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 6th in NAS with 299 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 98 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of HPE 3PAR StoreServ writes "The product's technical support is outstanding as I can reach someone right away". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and HPE StoreOnce, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and VAST Data. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. NetApp FAS Series report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage 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.