We performed a comparison between IBM Spectrum Scale and IBM Spectrum Virtualize based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It makes our file system sharing a lot easier, even across different continents. We have had file systems shared across different continents with no performance degradation."
"The high performance of the solution is its most valuable aspect. If you compare it to other storage solutions, it's much better."
"It has been pretty reliable throughout the years. As far as capacity is concerned, it can handle most heavy loads."
"Technical support has been very helpful. They provide us with pretty good solutions that we can implement moving forward."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share files across different platforms."
"We can have multiple systems within the same file system."
"It is incredibly scalable and stable."
"We are using it for monitoring all of our storage."
"One of the main features of Spectrum Virtualize is it virtualizes the servers from the storage. We have a very large infrastructure. A major advantage is when you get the aged storage arrays and you have to replace all of those."
"The most valuable feature is its reliability."
"I like all the features, but the most impressive recently has been the introduction of IBM's Flash Core Modules. They are a form of a flash drive, but they have many more features."
"It's got full features, so we can compress volumes. We can do thin volumes and we can change them on the fly."
"We acquire companies (and things), so we end up with odd hardware. We bring it behind the SVC and it allows us to migrate stuff off of it seamlessly. SVC can also cover up a host of defects of the underlying storage."
"It lowers cost. It does so by getting more efficient use out of the technology behind it."
"We are happy with the support that IBM provides us."
"Although the GUI from the XIV was used (in my view), IBM has polished and refined the GUI providing a pleasant and easy to navigate GUI experience."
"Making it a little easier to add bad file sets would help. There is a transition to how you add storage and how you add a file set, so making that a little smoother would probably be my recommendation."
"Maybe it needs integration with HA."
"The biggest problem is that it is not able to provide block storage."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The main issue that we have now is with the encryption. They want to use more metrics in encryption, which is not working very well."
"It would be helpful if there was a graphical user interface that could walk you through the deployment process. The instructions surrounding setup aren't the best. They need to be more step-by-step."
"They should probably simply the Red Hat implementation portion. This portion was not as straightforward as I would like it to be."
"This is probably the biggest challenge, getting everything upgraded, because it just takes time. We wish it was a faster solution to be able to do everything at once, but you have do each node individually. The more nodes, the longer it takes."
"Tighter integration with cloud storage might be useful as a target for a variety of use cases."
"There are big arrays now, and if a customer wants add more disks to it, you have to have another array. Adding disks to existing arrays is one of the most demanded things from our customers."
"t is limited in terms of a single system to eight nodes or four, what they call IO groups."
"The only errors I find sometimes is the solution tells me I cannot operate it because a service has turned off, you can just go back to the VM, go to services, and turn back the services. However, this should improve."
"The integration would be an option that we would like, but I understand that's not how it's going to be implemented."
"I already discussed possible improvements with some of the guys from Hearnsley. One of our frustrations is when you go to expand volumes in a global mirror environment, you have to stop everything in order to expand. So that's one of the things."
"The solution could have a better built-in performance monitor."
"Anything which improves performance and the ability of our systems would be a nice."
IBM Spectrum Scale is ranked 7th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 10 reviews while IBM Spectrum Virtualize is ranked 15th in Software Defined Storage (SDS) with 36 reviews. IBM Spectrum Scale is rated 8.4, while IBM Spectrum Virtualize is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM Spectrum Scale writes "A stable solution with valuable profile-sharing features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Spectrum Virtualize writes "A highly scalable product that is relatively easy to use and set up". IBM Spectrum Scale is most compared with Red Hat Ceph Storage, Portworx Enterprise, VMware vSAN, DDN IME and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), whereas IBM Spectrum Virtualize is most compared with Dell VPLEX, VMware vSAN, VxRail, DataCore SANsymphony and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP. See our IBM Spectrum Scale vs. IBM Spectrum Virtualize report.
See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors, best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors, and best Cloud Software Defined Storage vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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.
