We performed a comparison between DDN IntelliFlash and Tintri VMstore based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Tintri VMstore came out ahead of DDN IntelliFlash, as our reviewers found DDN IntelliFlash more difficult to deploy, more expensive, and requiring improvement in its support.
"For us, the most valuable feature is the compression and deduplication. Being able to deploy a three to one ratio for storage is absolutely critical in today's world with the growing need for storage and the growing need for more space."
"Data deduplication features make it easier to manage storage and forecast growth."
"The first year, we started out with one or five terabytes and it took what was 20 terabytes of storage down to less than one terabyte."
"The sales and executive support have been outstanding compared to the rest of the market... My upgrade paths have been simple on the Pure... It's a lot simpler to implement and a lot simpler to manage."
"We've been using FlashArray's snapshot for backups. Their replication across sites and response time are also excellent."
"It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use."
"The amount of data that I have moved to it from legacy storage has enabled us to retire units that are three or four times the physical size."
"One of the lesser sung advantages was when we started running our interface engine on Pure Storage. The ability to process messages and pass them through in our organization skyrocketed purely because of a disk that I owned which we were getting out of Pure Storage."
"Data Compression: Up to 80% space reduction in the database"
"EasyTier/hotcaching: Valuable because it allows greater performance than standard SAS disks"
"High performance and ease-of-management are the most valuable features."
"It provides a combination of all the protocols that you need, without losing deduplication and compression."
"It has reduced our electricity usage by reducing the amount of disks needed for the virtual environment."
"It performed great originally, and when it performed great, it was awesome."
"It's very fast. We were seeing read latencies of less than one millisecond. It is robust."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Its VM-aware features have been excellent to use and integrate with XenServer as well."
"Its performance is amazing. Since I have put Tintri in, I haven't had a complaint from anybody about slowness. On top of that, there is block-level cloning and the ability to spin up VMs."
"We love the real-time replication, ease of use when connecting our servers to the storage, and the level of redundancy inside the box... It's also simple software and integrates well with VMware so we get a lot of information about all of the VMs, how they're performing individually, and about network latency. That's very helpful when you're troubleshooting a slowdown."
"I've worked on both EMC and NetApp SANs, and this is by far the easiest system to maintain"
"The most valuable feature is the VM management."
"Web GUI for maintenance and resource monitoring purposes is easy to use."
"It has easy setup, easy administration, and no LUNs!"
"Upgrades are super easy and can be done during business hours without interruptions in production."
"It is not possible to create a cluster on top of multiple arrays."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure."
"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."
"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."
"Data reduction is an area that needs improvement. There is a garbage collection service that runs but during that time, system utilization increases."
"It needs to improve its price."
"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."
"It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that."
"We had just one small stability problem with power flapping and it did not start up again automatically. We had to access service ports and manually restart the storage processors."
"It's somewhat scalable, but maybe not so much as some of the competition."
"Snapshots are not as easy to access as on a NetApp device."
"Technical support is bad. It'd grade them at 30% or 40%. The response time is terrible."
"They need to offer better integration for a virtual platform to enable you to create hyper-converged solution."
"It only keeps one hour of real-time data without the ability to do deep analysis of each element."
"In the proxy section you can’t choose a user account and password, so it is not allowed at the moment to go out, if customer has such constellation."
"Performance is horrible now. Our original intent was to buy new storage in about two years. But since it became a critical urgency for us, we decided to purchase a new one in two or three months."
"More cloud integration."
"Their support staff just doesn't have the experience with all of the products that we're running. They don't know the 850 series like we do because it's five years old. There is a little bit of a gap, and that may just be because we're an old customer running on platforms that their staff hasn't seen. I would like to see an improvement in their in-depth knowledge of their older products."
"On the software side, I suggest adding integration with backups software like CommVault Simpana or Veeam where these products can integrate with the array and trigger things like snapshots for backup, etc."
"What I feel would be nice, in terms of a wishlist, is scalability. Rather than replacing the whole appliance, I would like to be able to just add another unit and scale it like that."
"I would love more insight into each virtual machine statistic."
"We need more options to integrate with cloud storage options other than the current AWS and IBM that it currently supports."
"I would like to be able to add more storage capacity to our 2 units down the road with out buying an additional seprate array."
"The product could be improved by adding iSCSI support. We have had to rethink how we implement some of our services due to this."
Earn 20 points
DDN IntelliFlash is ranked 28th in All-Flash Storage with 11 reviews while Tintri VMstore is ranked 15th in All-Flash Storage with 61 reviews. DDN IntelliFlash is rated 7.4, while Tintri VMstore is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of DDN IntelliFlash writes "Good features with an easy initial setup but technical support is slow ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tintri VMstore writes "Enables us to increase our retail sales and margins while decreasing the amount of time spent managing the solution". DDN IntelliFlash is most compared with VAST Data, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and DDN SFA7990X, whereas Tintri VMstore is most compared with Dell PowerStore, HPE Nimble Storage, VMware vSAN, NetApp AFF and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI).
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.