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 most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"The deduplication and compression meet all of our system requirements."
"We've had different types of storage, and three things of this solution are valuable. The first one is its outstanding performance. The second one is its stability. In the about three years that we've had it, we've had component failures, but we never had a service interruption or any data loss. The third one, which is really critical, is that it is super easy to use in terms of provisioning, storage, and managing the arrays. I'm able to maintain a multi-site environment with a couple of dozen arrays with a single mid-level storage admin."
"Having fast storage allows actual servers to perform in high capacity so we don't have slowdowns on our applications."
"It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is its high stability level."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"I like FlashArray's ActiveCluster as well as its snapshot and cloning capabilities."
"3PAR is easy to keep running and does not require too much effort. It has been very reliable, which is key."
"It is very stable. That is why we bought it."
"They are using Ansible to automate the provisioning, so that simplifies the day-to-day operations."
"I like that it's stable. This is the reason why we're using these products. We work in the broadcast market, and stability is very important. HPE has global services, and that's also important. Dell and HPE are some big companies, and their solutions are robust and stable."
"With the HPE GreenLake Flex Capacity, we can grow as required."
"The solution is stable."
"We can do more, faster, whether it's spinning up more virtual machines or handling large amounts of data."
"HPE can login, fix things, alert us to things, and upgrade. We are there and aware, but we do not do the work. So, that is good."
"It's a stable product. No issues there."
"Better performance and lower costs."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is stable."
"It has integrated snapshot and backup capability."
"This solution provides us with easy management and great vendor support."
"The solution is very stable and reliable"
"The product is flexible."
"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 backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"We need to add more storage in Pure Storage FlashArray with the cluster mode activated for us to have better performance."
"Self-backup is the only feature lacking in this solution."
"I would like to see support for NVMe, end-to-end."
"The solution is not cheap."
"I like what they're doing, but some of my customers complain that they do not have all the bells and whistles and knobs to fine-tune workloads that some of the competitors have. In my opinion, that's good. All customers don't have dedicated storage gurus, and they can get themselves into trouble if they fine-tune too many of those high-performance knobs, but they do get knocked down. Pure Storage takes a hit in the minds and opinions of some of the customers because they cannot customize things as much as compared to a legacy storage provider's appliance such as NetApp, Dell EMC, or even HPE. I personally think 95% of my customers are better off letting the system fine-tune itself. That was something that you needed to do 12 or 15 years ago, but now with all-flash, the technology can handle what it needs to handle. Customers just end up shooting themselves in the foot if they are tweaking too many default settings."
"It is way in excess of what we need. If anything, we could see a bit more speed. I'm just comparing it with what some of my colleagues who are implementing their own systems do."
"The initial setup was complex, due to calculating the amount of performance that we needed for the floor."
"From an overall perspective, all the latest technologies can improve support and performance. This is very important for us."
"I would like to see an automatic re-balancing system or functionality for adaptive optimization."
"I would like to see compatibility with NVMe."
"It needs better dedupe. It is hard for all the older generation arrays to put up dedupe because they tend to do the other stuff so much better. They have to keep the stability before any other new feature."
"Although we experienced malfunctions where a virus was running and it failed."
"A lot of tasks, you have to manually set up. They need to already have them set up and working. Then, you can just go in and tweak them if you need to."
"The GUI interface could be improved. I have been having trouble with one issue in particular. If you look at the DC and DR, if there is a communication break and the link went down—so the data is not replicating from DC to DR—there is no way to find out how much data is ready for transmission. Only the size of the data that needs to be transferred after the link comes up. If the firewall link is down, there is no way of seeing how much data is waiting to be transferred. This is a weak point of 3PAR."
"We would like to have further integration with some backup products. They have some of them already, but there could be more."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The product should improve its user experience."
"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."
"The high cost of the product is an area of concern, so from an improvement perspective, the tool needs to be made cheaper."
"The biggest issue we face is parts delivery. There's no local warehouse in Myanmar, so if a customer encounters a technical problem like an IMEI issue, they have to wait a long time for replacement parts."
"NetApp is costly when compared to Dell."
"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."
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.