We performed a comparison between HPE 3PAR StoreServ and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"It's reduced our overhead management time on storage, since it is so simple to get in and just provision a volume, present it to the host, and then you are done."
"Pure Storage technology allowed us to automate tasks, reducing something which started as a 12-hour turnaround down to about 15 minutes."
"We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"Very efficient storage"
"The initial setup was very straightforward and very quick. It was up and running in our data center within 24 hours of receiving it."
"It is an easy to use product for all of my team members."
"The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage."
"Their support is the most valuable. The support that we are getting from HP Turkey is very good. This product is better than some of the other products in terms of reliability. It is very reliable."
"We never had a blackout and we have never been offline."
"If you design it right and implement it right, it's headache free. Just keep it there and it does what it's suppose to do."
"I am impressed with the product's online upgrades."
"We have been able to scale faster and get our applications out in much less time. We don't need to worry about the platform's ability to manage the workload, so we are pretty happy."
"The InfoSight feature helps us with troubleshooting problems in our environment."
"The most valuable feature for me is the solution's availability."
"The compression features are good."
"The business copy solution has become faster using SnapMirror."
"The performance of NetApp AFF allows our developers and researches to run models and their tests within a single workday instead of spreading out across multiple workdays."
"It also helps to accelerate databases in our environment. First of all, there is the reliability of things staying online and the small response time as well, from the MetroCluster, for all of the data that we're serving; and the applications are talking to the MetroCluster. It provides a very fast response time."
"NetApp tech support is so good. Their tech support has always been so stable and the people are so good in case of any failure or any good feature that needs to be updated or features that supposedly can help with performance to improve some performance. NetApp support is one of the best that I deal with."
"The overall latency in our environment is very low because it's All Flash and we've got 10 Giga dedicated to the storage network"
"Most of our business-critical systems are provisioned from the NetApp AFF system. Compared to others, we have a minimal latency. Configuring the DR for high availability or migrating the volumes from one box to another is pretty easy with NetApp AFF."
"It is easy to manage data through the GUI by using Active IQ and the unified manager."
"Snapshots, snap clones, backups, flexibility, and agility are valuable features. I like that NetApp AFF is easy to use. We can automate everything for our backups and use cases. It's fast and simple, and provides storage to all of our VMware ESX hosts. It expands easily as well."
"Currently, the solution fails to support file screening."
"I would rate this solution an eight because we have had outages. The commit times went very high in the database. The whole array went down so our customers were down for around eight hours. This was a very big outage which could have been our fault because we didn't do the upgrade in time."
"We did have one hiccup with the integration of vCenter. When we were installing Pure Storage, we were using vCenter 6.7, which defaults to the HTML5 Web Client. The current plugin for Pure Storage doesn't show up in that client at all. You have to go and use the legacy FlexFlash client to see the Pure Storage plugin in vCenter."
"There are a lot of things to improve."
"We haven't seen ROI."
"It was a little costly. The price was ultimately higher than both of the other solutions that we evaluated. I'd say that's the only downside."
"I would like a feature to integrate with external or cloud solutions. For example, if I want to use this storage for a backup from the cloud, I want to have integration with the cloud vendors, such as Microsoft, Oracles, or Amazon. It could be available as an API to allow seamless integration. Additionally, the solution could improve by having native integration with a cloud provider, such as VMware or Microsoft, this would reduce the need to use third-party solutions to complete the task."
"Pricing could be better in comparison to other solutions."
"The hard part with the initial setup was that we were on EMC VNX and trying to get those converted over into the HPE 3PAR, that process took awhile, along with scheduling downtime to get some of the physical stuff migrated over to the new device."
"The performance of the solution is not good anymore and the software is different from all the other types and is not compatible. There are more negative things at this moment than positive. This is why we are removing them all from our organization this year."
"We are using a built-in solution in 3PAR. We are using All-Flash Storage, and there are some difficulties with it. HPE has now developed a new tool system to support All-Flash, and that's why we are changing our investment. They must increase its performance. I want unlimited support, which is very important for performance. I am not interested in spinning disks. HPE is developing new storage systems called Primera, but they must be developed more."
"HPE 3PAR StoreServ should increase the storage capacity."
"An area of improvement for this solution is an increase in the bandwidth as well as an upgrade of the storage functionality and capabilities. The storage needs to be expandable for future-proofing."
"The solution must be vertically and horizontally expandable."
"3PAR needs to keep on increasing its capacity."
"I would like to be able to deploy and manage 3PAR within OneView Global Dashboard so we do not have to use the interface for 3PAR."
"I would like them to roll in global monitoring instead of having to buy another product for it."
"To enhance the already excellent administration, one area for potential improvement could be in terms of integration."
"In terms of improvement, the support could be a little better."
"I would like for them to develop the ability to detach the fabric pool. Once you've added it to an aggregate it's there for life and it would be nice to disconnect it if we ever had to."
"The bad part about having scalability is the expense. It is currently extremely expensive, to be able to scale so fast on flash."
"The scaling needs improvement. NetApp is limited for scaling options."
"Higher communication: I love the professional services and I love everything that everyone's able to offer us, but I find sometimes we're not aware of all the things that NetApp can do."
"We were migrating from Data ONTAP 7-Mode to its Cluster-Mode. Therefore, we had to get swing gear, then do the migration from loner gear and back onto our new gear. This was a bit difficult. It took us several months to do multiple migrations."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 9th in All-Flash Storage with 299 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. 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 NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, HPE StorageWorks MSA and HPE StoreOnce, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. NetApp AFF report.
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.
From what I understand of Gary’s response, can we assume that the HP 3PAR is more suitable for multi-site companies that require replication between sites, and that the Netapp is more suitable for local installations and is probably faster in terms of local backup and restore operations?
Either will after the maintenance period expires. They both offer 3,4 or 5 years upfront for maintenance and support. After that they will sting you big time for renewals.
If you have a lifecycle of say 4 years then get it upfront as there won't be any new charges due to replacements. Software wise is usually around 20% of the rrp price for annual renewal after the initial period of 3,4 or 5. Depends on the vendor.
The other part is how much your data is likely to grow as dedupe appliances such as store once and dell will charge a lot for upgrades. Again it's better to get more at the start to make sure your covered for the time frames you need.
Hope that all makes sense
Thanks you for your advise mate, any way let me know one things which one will give me the iceberg cost at the end of the day...? 3par with storeonce and switch or Netapp with additional third party storage back up let say from Dell server as storage to backup my data, app etc.
iIsee a lot of good comments on features of both Netapp and HP3Par, one important point to consider is that both these solutions offer some sort of point in time snapshots, snapvault,... these do not offer any cataloging features, A good backup solution includes a data base of backups for history. This is why you should also add either Data Protector, VEEM, Catalogic,. CommVault.,... the arrays themselves will do great snapshot recovery but without any information on the backups, the solution would be very limited.
Oh god I wondered when pure would raise its hand here. Seems to happen on every all flash post like they are desperate to sell systems.
I wouldn't touch pure they are struggling with sales against HP and EMC with xtremeIO systems. At a guess I would say they will get bought out soon by someone like Lenovo or another storage vendor.
However the topic here is HP vs NetApp and what's needed i would recommend staying on subject and not trying to promote other systems that haven't been asked about.
I would back the HP system here with data protector for backup. NetApp as someone else mentioned has big issues with their all flash hence why they bought an all flash competitor solid fire so that they have a proper all flash offering without WAFL
Hello, i am not familiar with 3Par storage but i can tell you great things about the PureStorage all-flash-arrays. We installed the FA-450 and an M50 and the performance is unbelievable!! Both pump through 200,000 32K IOPS. All redundant hardware and fantastic customer service.
Will there be any offsite replication ?
So if I understand what you're asking, you want to know if there is any
kind of premium to being able to back up the 3par array? The answer is no,
but there is software specifically available to do snapshots (Virtual Copy)
and for special direct-to-disk backup from a 3par to an HP StoreOnce
de-duplication appliance from Oracle or SQL Server. Feel free to call me if
you need further explanation.