We performed a comparison between Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] and IBM FlashSystem 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 simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use."
"Having fast storage allows actual servers to perform in high capacity so we don't have slowdowns on our applications."
"It simplifies storage."
"It does efficient work of storing data while still delivering the performance that you would normally expect from a higher priced solution."
"It is the SAN backbone for our company."
"The compression and deduplication features help to make the best use of the capacity."
"It is an SSD array that has awesome performance, low submillisecond latency, and does what it is supposed to do. It just works, which is difficult for things to do anymore."
"The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption."
"I like most of the features. Its speed, performance, and availability are valuable. We are implementing the data reduction technology the most."
"The FlashSystem 900 consistently delivers performance below 1ms for read/write. This performance is essential for an effective SVC stretch-cluster configuration across two datacenters, and presenting active-active storage to the customer."
"The Flash core models offer amazing performance."
"When it comes to the interface of the solution we did not encounter any challenges. Additionally, the solution has good documentation."
"It is simple to make an update."
"IBM FlashSystem is the best solution for storage virtualization."
"The performance of the All-Flash System is very good. There is more enhanced performance and data production in the solution, which I appreciate."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"Having something native in the Pure Storage ecosystem would make it integrated and in one single company, and we wouldn't have to work with multiple organizations."
"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."
"The number of Filesystems is limited, which it is not on the EMC VNX."
"The solution is not cheap."
"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."
"The connectivity needs improvement. You do not have the possibility to have a file and block connectivity at the same time on the same machine. It has limited ability to do so."
"I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for uses that we needed."
"I want to learn more about command line usage which I have not explored much yet. However, there are many automated solutions for repetitive tasks. I would like to see additional features like performance monitoring, configuring of alerts, and the customization of alert thresholds in the next release."
"The exterior display needs to be improved."
"I would like to have a larger disk. Right now, you can get 57 terabytes in a shelf. Once they get the larger disk and you get larger capacities, it'll be even better."
"They don't offer subscription-based payments."
"Sometimes the performance is effective but it gets resolved in the process."
"Product support is restricted to IBM only. It must be decentralized to IBM partners as well."
"The solution is not easy to implement. It takes a lot of time to study the product and it's a little complicated in general."
"The product needs to improve their scalability."
"The technical support in my region is satisfactory but it could improve. Support is very important for customers and downtime is very critical for us. We would like onsite or complete technical support which can help us to minimize our downtime or if problems occur."
"It has room for improvement in the area of stability."
More Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews. Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is rated 10.0, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. 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 IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is most compared with , whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and HPE Nimble Storage.
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.