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."They are quite responsive and our local team was pretty good."
"I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand."
"The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing."
"The most valuable feature is its upgradeability."
"It is noticeably easier to manage than other appliances that we have."
"The tool has reduced our power consumption."
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on."
"Being able to snapshot things for backup purposes has been key. We do that on our databases four times a day."
"The all-flash positions our organization for growth. If somebody comes to us who needs an application with performance, we have that already formulated."
"HPE 3PAR StoreServ is an enterprise storage that is mainly deployed in enterprise scenarios like banking and insurance."
"Since it's being used to support a virtual infrastructure, that gives us access to all of the benefits of a virtual infrastructure. So, instead of spending hours trying to rebuild or to fix a broken server, we can instead wipe it out and throw up a new one and we're up and running again."
"3PAR is different from other storage solutions because it uses a chunklet when we initiate the storage. Every disk is submitted as a 1 GB chunklet. This chunklet can be RAID 1, 4, 5, or 6. This fabulous feature is very useful for me because I can distribute the RAID for any volume. The adaptive optimization is the biggest feature in 3PAR. 3PAR is very usable with thin volume because it detects zeros while writing. Every time I tell the hypervisor to make the full provisioning, it makes the volume as simple provisioning in 3PAR, not full provisioning. Other vendors take this volume as thick provisioning because of which the capacity is reached quickly. It doesn't happen in 3PAR because it detects zeros. It only writes the data, and it doesn't write zeros. There are two processors in 3PAR: the ASIC processor and the main processor. The ASIC processor detects zero writing and doesn't write it, which is a big feature in 3PAR."
"The solution has improved our throughput by helping us keep up with the demand and acquisitions that we have been going through."
"The most valuable features are their tight integration with VMware, their multi-node architecture, and their copy services, such as Peer Persistence."
"We choose 3PAR for its speed. It's so fast and reliable."
"The strong point is that our clients like this are RadLV (Radiology Low-Value). They also use SnapMirror and MetroCluster."
"Data consolidation and visualization."
"Most valuable features are its ease of use, robust Snapshot functionality, and that you can use it in two datacenters with SnapMirror-ing."
"The most valuable feature of the NetApp FAS Series is its stability."
"The most valuable feature of the NetApp FAS Series is the snapshot and the FlexClone for Oracle and Microsoft SQL environments. Additionally, the integration can be done with most all on-premise and cloud providers."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Adaptive balancing is a valuable feature."
"The migration of the volume on the cluster is very useful and easy to use."
"I'd like to see a move towards individual VMs for what the performance of each VM is in a VD infrastructure. I can see the overall volume, but I would love to see things in a more granular level on the VM side."
"It was not proactive communication."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"The connectivity needs improvement. You do not have the possibility to have a file and block connectivity at the same time on the same machine. It has limited ability to do so."
"The price could be better."
"One thing I'd like to see in a future release is integration between their main storage array and what they call their FlashBlade product; to be able to snapshot directly from the primary array into multiple different backup copies on FlashBlade."
"It would be good to have metrics of the box's performance so we can see what it delivers, but currently, I can't see what it's actually doing."
"In the next version of this program, I would like to see increased security, higher encryption, and faster throughput."
"This solution should be easier to use."
"We do see room for improvement, especially in regard to expanding the defined storage areas."
"Our support in the US has been phenomenal, no issues at all. But the European support was poor initially."
"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."
"We would also like to see improvements to the ease of administration of 3PAR."
"We have had some challenges in the Arabic implementation and in migration, but for daily work, it's fine."
"Sometimes the required upgrades have been a little bit involved: "You have to do this before you do this," and I want them to explain to me why. It's more work than it should be."
"I would like to see the reliability improve. While it has been a good product, the QA of the product could be done a little more thoroughly."
"Cluster mode needs to be more ubiquitous."
"Interfacing with the cloud environment could be better. I want to be able to move some cloud volume and integrate it seamlessly with my home on-premise storage. Sometimes I have issues with port permissions. NetApp probably needs to improve more on the integration side from on-premise to the cloud."
"The WAFL is slow."
"NetApp FAS Series could improve by being more secure."
"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."
"It could be more flexible in terms of configuration."
"The user interface could be improved to have better graphics and the performance analyzer could be better."
"The product should include an audit log feature."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 6th in NAS with 298 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 96 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 and NetApp AFF, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and ExaGrid EX Series. 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.