We performed a comparison between Reduxio [EOL] and SolidFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."It gives us capacity planning."
"It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use."
"It has good stability for our company."
"The most valuable feature is its speed."
"The first set up we had was really straight forward and simple."
"The solution helps to simplify storage."
"What I like most about this solution, is the speed, resiliency and scalability."
"It is fast and reliable. It works."
"We are getting 4.4:1 data reduction, which means we will be able to squeeze over 120TB into 2U. This is more than enough capacity for us."
"Ease of use, time to market and scalability are all advantages. We can install new software and new applications in no time. That means we don't need buy a new shelf or new disks, just create a virtual machine and the system does everything behind the scenes."
"The HTML5 UI is clean, easy to navigate, and very intuitive."
"The whole product is based on point-in-time restore capabilities built into their storage appliance, and no one else I know does that."
"The ability to target existing remote storage with NoRestore is going to allow us to leverage existing storage without an increased financial investment."
"Reduxio offers a very simple, elegant user interface (design) to manage it."
"Write latency is averaging way under a millisecond."
"The machine has been easy to use."
"If we get complaints about any kind of performance metric issues, whether it's storage related or something on the virtual side, we use it to pinpoint what the actual issue is."
"It is very easy to scale up SolidFire."
"Greater IOPS, speed, it's all-flash. So seeing that everything is going to all-flash, all SSDs, SolidFire fits right in there with the emerging trend in IT."
"The scalability and being able to implement it quickly."
"We can add a node, we add compute, we add storage, and we've had really good luck with that."
"SolidFire is one of the products that does have great APIs right out-of-the-box. It works great. The tools and the other stuff seem to work a little better right out-of-the-box than the ONTAP stuff does, C-Mode."
"Templates are already predefined for it. If you're coding it up, it will take two days. You can pick up a template right there from the API, and it just works for you. Implementation done in 10 minutes."
"If you buy the solution for its specific purpose it will work well."
"Part of our company works on Dell EMC because Pure Storage did not have synchronous applications when we were purchasing our products."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"We would like to see more cloud support, which we know is coming, although it's not out yet. It's going to be released in the next versions. That would be the biggest win, if additional cloud support is built into the array."
"This product has only two active controllers, whereas other solutions can have more. This is something that needs to improve."
"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."
"I would like to see them lower the costs."
"There are a lot of things to improve."
"It would be nice if Pure had something in its portfolio that provided higher deduplication and compression for backups."
"Needs some hooks into cloud storage for backup. Also they should update the system to use additional secondary storage as a resource."
"The user interface for the web console could be more user-friendly, while it is flashy, how to find functions is not necessarily obvious."
"I am waiting on a feature set in the new version which should allow me to replicate between Reduxio iSCSI SANs for disaster recovery and also to 3rd party iSCSI SANs which are cheaper for an archive or DR target."
"Integration is needed with other virtual vendors like VMware, Veeam, Hyper-V; that integration needs to be deeper, not just the way that they're using it now. I know that it's under development, but I think this is one of the disadvantages, for now, as a young company. They have to work with the other players on the market."
"The ability to look at data at a file level would be useful, as well as the ability recover at that level. Right now, you can only recover whole volumes."
"the only thing I would say negative about Reduxio is the cabling was a little bit confusing at first, but now that we understand it, it's easy. It was just so different from what we've seen before. That was the only hard part to get used to. The storage array is fully redundant, so there are some cross-connect cables that you have to run, from the A side to the B side, and the B side back to the A side, and we've just never seen anything like that before. But now that I understand the design, it makes complete sense. But initially it was confusing."
"The only thing that I would point out would be the basic administration management of the machine. Everything has rights, meaning that there's either all control or no delegated control. So to sum that up, it would be a feature request for delegated management in the administrative console."
"Scalability. Reduxio has only one product, they don’t have an option, for now, to expand the storage product."
"So feature-wise, I would say more reporting tools that could be merged into it."
"You don't have business continuity with SolidFire. I think it could be a nice feature to have in the future."
"We had some false positives, power supplies failing, and that's really been about it. We had a couple of glitches during some upgrade processes but nothing that was really concerning to us."
"A little better segregation of the multi-tenancy. Right now, it's just VLAN-specific, that's all you can do."
"We have a large fiber channel infrastructure, and that's one area that we haven't seen implemented in SolidFire, its more iSCSI."
"This solution would be improved if it were made to be more compatible with other products."
"They could make the mNode more user-friendly. Now you need to configure and add nodes by CLI and it’s not really easy to manage. If they created a web interface to do the management of the mNode, that would be great!."
"The inclusion of more protocols and interfaces would make it easier to integrate with other products."
Earn 20 points
Reduxio [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while SolidFire is ranked 19th in All-Flash Storage with 33 reviews. Reduxio [EOL] is rated 9.8, while SolidFire is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Reduxio [EOL] writes "Its access speed and now its recently released features makes Reduxio not only an equal, but also better than your older version SANs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolidFire writes "A versatile storage solution suitable for various workloads in cloud environments providing scalable architecture, granular Quality of Service and consistent performance". Reduxio [EOL] is most compared with , whereas SolidFire is most compared with NetApp AFF, Dell PowerStore and VMware vSAN.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage 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.
