We performed a comparison between HPE 3PAR StoreServ and IBM System Storage DS5000 Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is what we consider to be the best feature it provides. The stability of this solution is what conquers us, every day."
"With the HPE GreenLake Flex Capacity, we can grow as required."
"HPE 3PAR has all the common storage features like cell provisioning and deduplication. Usually the solution is chosen by the customer as they have a preference, or the setup is already in their environment."
"So far, we have yet to have a disk fail on either system, other than one I forced to fail when we first got the system in. So the reliability of the 3PAR system has been outstanding."
"We have our backups set up to replicate between two sites, then we also have our storage set up to replicate between two sites."
"The support is really fast. There is very good support for 3PAR storage."
"The most valuable features for me are the simple management of the platform and its performance."
"It is easy to set up, easy to use, and user-friendly. It is easier to work with HPE 3PAR than with Hitachi. Its technical support is also good."
"The stability is excellent."
"The solution is stable. I rate its stability a nine out of ten."
"The stability and performance of the drive are the most valuable."
"You can easily virtualize and share the storage."
"The most valuable feature is compression."
"It is a very stable solution."
"We use it for applications, databases, media, files, etc."
"I also like all the software features you get from the IBM System Storage DS5000 Series such as the SVC (SAN volume controller). You can put the code on the controllers, and it really gives you the advantage because you'll have HyperSwap."
"HPE 3PAR StoreServ has limited flexibility in building replication solutions. There are limitations to the number of IOPS the system can do. It's not bad as it is doing its job. However, for the application, if you need a toolbox, you can build everything concerning periodic replication modes of synchronous or asynchronous three-site, four-site, with supported cascading which requires you to buy an IBM product. It also takes a few hours to one day to upgrade the system and sometimes; it takes more time because, in some HPE 3PAR StoreServ 20000 Storage, you have an eight-node system. If you do an upgrade, you do it node by node and every node might take more than an hour."
"Integration with some cloud services would be nice... We would like to be able to provision from the 3PAR and decide whether or not we are going to provision onsite or the cloud."
"With 3PAR, there is remote copy software which isn't very good."
"The solution lacks reliability."
"We had a minor error when we were configuring this system, which initially detracted from its overall stability."
"It's a very complex platform to manage and it's not cheap either. It doesn't really give us the level of flexibility we had for very, very small workloads."
"3PAR has StoreOnce and replication. I would like it if they worked together. Or, if I had Nimble and put that either in DR or a primary cohesive management, but still use the cool features of 3PAR, that would be awesome."
"...sizing is everything. If you don't do the sizing right and you don't understand every detail of the product, how it works, you can be in a very unpleasant situation when you pay half a million dollars and you have a product that does not work as you expected."
"The product should improve its support."
"IBM System Storage DS5000 is expensive when compared to other vendors."
"IBM is not always as agile as other competitors when it is about cloud integration and user interfaces. They're not renewing themselves very often. They have been slow to evolve from the old GUI. The user interface should be improved, especially regarding performance analysis, which has always been a little bit weak as compared to other solutions. As a global solution, it lacks the feature for containing integration object storage. Even though they have now started to offer this feature, it is quite young and not as developed as some other vendors. There are also no mass possibilities at all. They have a lot of competition in the mid-range segment. They need to have a NAS gateway or something like that. It doesn't specifically need to be integrated into the controllers that are keys to the gateway."
"The solution is not flexible enough."
"The product is very costly. Very few can afford it."
"The solution's integration with other tools could be improved."
"Regarding improvements, there's a common perception, primarily during pre-sales, that IBM storage solutions are expensive, though studies often prove otherwise. As for additional functionality, supporting two to three sites for applications might be a potential enhancement."
"Improving software installation and licensing retrieval would make using IBM System Storage DS5000 series easier for customers."
More IBM System Storage DS5000 Series Pricing and Cost Advice →
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 3rd in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 299 reviews while IBM System Storage DS5000 Series is ranked 6th in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 13 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while IBM System Storage DS5000 Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of HPE 3PAR StoreServ writes "The product's technical support is outstanding as I can reach someone right away". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM System Storage DS5000 Series writes "Very reliable, easy to install, and offers good value for money". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and HPE StorageWorks MSA, whereas IBM System Storage DS5000 Series is most compared with . See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. IBM System Storage DS5000 Series report.
See our list of best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors.
We monitor all Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) 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.