We performed a comparison between Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Vantara, IBM, Dell Technologies and others in Frame-Based Disk Arrays."I never have to worry about its performance or if it is the root cause of an issue."
"Support has been helpful."
"Pure Storage technology allowed us to automate tasks, reducing something which started as a 12-hour turnaround down to about 15 minutes."
"The performance of the storage is just unbelievable."
"The simplicity of it. The performance is good, but the simplicity is the best thing. Storage management is quite complex, but Pure Storage is easy to manage."
"The reliability is very good."
"The best feature is consistently lower latency, even when IOPS crank up to over 75K. The product maintains submillisecond response time, which is incredible."
"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."
"The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption."
"Storage is the most valuable feature."
"The performance was decent."
"The product provides a good storage space."
"There are no significant challenges in terms of scalability, and it can accommodate larger storage capacities compared to other storage solutions."
"The most valuable feature of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is the platform and overall usage has been good. We have not had very many issues."
"The active-active option seemed to be working well and overall, it was a solid product."
"The biggest benefit of the Hitachi platform is 100 percent storage uptime. It's also highly cost-effective."
"The first thing that attracted this model to us was the non-disruptive migration. We had a very large database application that was on older gear and needed to be migrated to these arrays. We had experience with virtualizing behind an array and moving applications and data but this made it even better."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"I would like to see data tiering to AWS."
"The time-to-market could be better at times, but I think that's true for all vendors of hardware."
"I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason."
"I would like to see a Nagios monitoring plugin which watches the health and performance of the system. The only one available just checks volume capacity."
"It's too early to tell if we've seen a reduction in total cost of ownership. The solution is expensive."
"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."
"In the configuration, which we brought in or tested it in, it has a very limited config as far as the array goes. That said, it still did more than our anticipation."
"The exterior display needs to be improved."
"The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage."
"For the support windows to work, maybe they have to upgrade the firmware of the VSP. They changed the hardware or the disk. I don't know if it was the port blade they changed or a VM for a memory cache. Also, replacing the old target with the processor target would be fine. The old equipment is very easy to manage, and I don't have any bad commentary."
"The initial deployment was somewhat complex when it came to the installation because of the network connectivity. It was more difficult, in this specific case, than with other platforms."
"I would like to see an audit account set up such that the user can log in, see the configuration, and see the logs, but they cannot make any changes."
"Hitachi Vantara has invested heavily in improving their management interface, however, they still have a way to go to catch up with many of their competitors."
"This product should be easier to install and set up."
"At the moment, I don't see any room for improvement in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series because my experience with the product is very good. The software is okay and you can manage the storage well. What I'd like to see in the next release of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is for it to be a real NAS solution because right now, you need to use a Hitachi converter called HNAS which makes the process a little bit more expensive. In my opinion, Hitachi should look into the possibility of unifying the HNAS into full storage, meaning that the HNAS should be integrated into the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series."
"The Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform faces challenges when it comes to features like deduplication and compression. Enabling these features can lead to processor overload, resulting in performance degradation, especially under high loads."
More Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Frame-Based Disk Arrays while Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 1st in Frame-Based Disk Arrays with 48 reviews. Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is rated 10.0, while Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] writes "Good price-performance ratio, provides simplified provisioning and management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "It's a high-performing solution with strong architecture". Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series.
See our list of best Frame-Based Disk Arrays vendors and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all Frame-Based Disk Arrays 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.