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.
"Access speed and power consumption are most valuable."
"I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand."
"NVMe data storage platform that's easy to set up and easy to use. It's stable, with a lower response time, and quick technical support."
"It is the SAN backbone for our company."
"Technical support has been amazing."
"This solution has improved our organization. In the past, we had reports that were taking up to two hours and after switching to SSD storage the overall processing power dropped to half an hour. The end users saw an immediate performance gain."
"Pure Storage FlashArray has significantly improved our data center performance. It handles high workloads efficiently, providing better performance in the environment. With increased storage capacity, it has led to improved overall system performance. The tool's technology is a standout feature. It has helped me reduce storage costs by 15 percent."
"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."
"It provides a combination of all the protocols that you need, without losing deduplication and compression."
"It performed great originally, and when it performed great, it was awesome."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"EasyTier/hotcaching: Valuable because it allows greater performance than standard SAS disks"
"It has reduced our electricity usage by reducing the amount of disks needed for the virtual environment."
"High performance and ease-of-management are the most valuable features."
"Data Compression: Up to 80% space reduction in the database"
"It's very fast. We were seeing read latencies of less than one millisecond. It is robust."
"Its VM-aware features have been excellent to use and integrate with XenServer as well."
"Among the most valuable features are its granular replication, the ability to define asynchronous or synchronous replication, which gives us very definable RTOs and RPOs around that type of service, and granular quality-of-service configuration, which allows for cases where you've got multiple customers on a single Tintri, but you want to be able to offer strong quality-of-service metrics and KPIs."
"We also find the detail per-vm reporting at the ability to see reports from the hypervisor straight back to the storage useful."
"It has easy setup, easy administration, and no LUNs!"
"Tintri VMstore is rock solid. We have not had a single issue with stability. It is also very low maintenance allowing us to concentrate on project work."
"The data encryption feature adds a valuable security enhancement with no impact on performance."
"The Deduplication feature in VDI environments. If Tintri says we can host 3000 VMs in our storage, I know we can host 3000 VMs there. Believe the results."
"We have been able to scale up to ten VM storages and 500 VMs through a single pane of glass."
"The file functionality could be better."
"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."
"What it needs to do is work a little closer with solutions, like VMware, so it understands the particular workloads that are on it. Today, it does not understand the applications which are running against it."
"The scalability of the solution is not as good as it probably could be."
"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."
"The price could be better."
"Areas for improvement would be the financial operations. In the next release, I would like to see a NAS protocol included."
"CIFS and SMB Shares cannot be mounted directly."
"They need to offer better integration for a virtual platform to enable you to create hyper-converged solution."
"Snapshots are not as easy to access as on a NetApp device."
"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."
"It only keeps one hour of real-time data without the ability to do deep analysis of each element."
"Technical support is bad. It'd grade them at 30% or 40%. The response time is terrible."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support is an area where we had several issues, and it was hard to get some support in a specific case we had. I'm not very satisfied with them."
"Speed of our VDI machines. We have a very high log in and log out ratio and machines are being refreshed instantly so we have a constant boot storm on our storage."
"The Tintri Analytics site is excellent for long-term trending, but more data would be great."
"The solution is already good but the brand name is not so popular here."
"Tintri need to be able to innovate faster but maintain the quality of their features."
"I would like it to have the ability to store data other than virtual machines. At the moment, you can only connect VMs to it, and that’s a bit disappointing."
Earn 20 points
DDN IntelliFlash is ranked 29th 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 "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". DDN IntelliFlash is most compared with VAST Data and NetApp AFF, 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.