We performed a comparison between Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] and Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System 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."Its array houses our entire production environment."
"We have tons of capacity on it."
"It reduces space and the polar consumption. It also accelerates the application."
"The code upgrades are very smooth."
"Data reduction and compression. Sub millisecond latency."
"It is the SAN backbone for our company."
"We've had to use tech support on a number of occasions. They did everything remotely and talked us all the way through. They fixed the issue within 30 minutes. Every single time we contact them, they're perfect. I would give their technical support a ten out of ten."
"We can store more for a cheaper price as opposed to paying for larger devices and larger rack spaces which get outdated sooner and which we'd have to change every two years. It simplifies storage for us."
"The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"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."
"If they could make it cheaper, that would be something."
"There was some complexity in the initial setup."
"They have a product, FlashBlade, which is their object storage integration, and that's something that we haven't integrated with yet. This might be an area for additional focus as it would play into scalability, because the very nature of object storage is that it's infinitely scalable."
"It is way in excess of what we need. If anything, we could see a bit more speed. I'm just comparing it with what some of my colleagues who are implementing their own systems do."
"The backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them."
"The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could be better."
"The exterior display needs to be improved."
"It has to be flexible according to the customer's requirements. It has to be aligned with the customer business and the business environment."
More Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Earn 20 points
Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is ranked 34th in All-Flash Storage. Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is rated 10.0, while Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is rated 8.0. 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 Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System writes "Has a fantastic feature-set and works well with workflow solutions". Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is most compared with Dell Unity XT.
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.
