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."The job of support for the storage engineers dramatically changed. We know more quickly the automation of the provisioning. We can now focus on things that bring more value to the company than just managing storage."
"Very efficient storage"
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"Pure is simple to set up and manage on a day-to-day basis."
"The management features are well organized and they have a very good dashboard."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is the complete set of functions it provides."
"Access speed and power consumption are most valuable."
"Lone segmentation is simpler and more agile. It's improved the velocity in overall provisioning from project to operation."
"Whatever failures you have, there is no single point of failure. So, any failure, you get an alert, you have time, you plan the fix, the replacement, and so on. So your operations are intact."
"It has improved uptime, as well as speed to delivery."
"Its performance is good. We have a lot of applications that have high I/O, and 3PAR handles those with no problem."
"We're able to move things around with more agility. I can take it off one server and slap it on another in a couple of minutes... And the speed is outstanding."
"Our applications are now at least two to four times faster."
"We know exactly the capacity that we need for the upcoming year, and it's much easier for us to enlarge the capacity and expose these disk volumes to the relevant servers."
"We have much better performance than we managed earlier and are now saving lots of space."
"The solutions has increased our performance. We went from 24,000 IOPS to around 70,000 IOPS."
"Good for NAS and unified solutions."
"The most valuable features are the NAS features and NetApp's excellent support."
"It's an easy product to use that is stable and has good performance."
"At the moment, we use NetApp SnapMirror to replicate data to another filer at an offsite location for backup. So, I like this feature."
"Most valuable features are its ease of use, robust Snapshot functionality, and that you can use it in two datacenters with SnapMirror-ing."
"End-users like that they can rely on the Snapshot technology so they can do their restores themselves."
"The solution is stable."
"I have found all the features useful in NetApp FAS Series."
"I would like to have an easy way to determine the cost per VM so that I can present a solution to our customers."
"We would like more extended historical data to help with some of the capacity planning. This is something that we are asking for all the time. E.g., what was the historical performance of this particular volume? So, we would like more historicals."
"The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them."
"The setup needs to be improved the most. They can do a little more with the user interface, but the setup is what I would like to see made a bit easier."
"The only time that we had problems with it was that there was a bug in the VVol implementation but, outside of that, it has been flawless."
"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."
"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."
"CIFS and SMB Shares cannot be mounted directly."
"The solution must be vertically and horizontally expandable."
"I would like to see an automatic re-balancing system or functionality for adaptive optimization."
"HPE 3PAR StoreServ's pricing could be cheaper."
"We are seeing that there are some enhancements which are required in the SSMC console. There are some features that we do not see in the dashboard."
"I would like to have support for On-The-fly reallocation Data when using VVoL."
"Upgrades on them are a bit tricky. For us to do a head swap on one is a full outer joiner storage frame, which is obviously not that easy to do in a production environment."
"We have had a few issues with it. We had our virtual environment lock up a few times on storage-based things. We think we have it sorted out, but maybe it came down to a configuration issue on it."
"The initial setup was complex, due to calculating the amount of performance that we needed for the floor."
"NetApp systems are somewhat more complex, though not excessively so. If you're transitioning from a Windows server environment to NetApp, get training or education; otherwise, you might struggle with this solution."
"It could be more flexible in terms of configuration."
"We are not able to connect to the support of NetApp from Sudan. We have to go through many agents for support, which makes it difficult."
"The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth."
"Replication should ideally be part of the ONTAP base bundle."
"It may need more flexibility to fight with other competing arrays."
"With scalability, we feel the system is limited."
"Cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive."
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.