We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp Private Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ability to create LUNs and modify them are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Flash disk with Easy Tier option"
"This solution is really user friendly. It also offers good performance and is highly reliable."
"IBM's technical support do excellent work."
"IBM FlashSystem has been stable in our operations."
"It is simple to make an update."
"The installation is nice and easy."
"The power systems are very reliable if you are running 24/7 operations. For ongoing mission-critical applications, it's the best solution."
"NetApp has its own dedicated operating system, so it will not be affected by any wireless piggybacking or malware. That's the beauty of NetApp's operating system."
"The most valuable feature is integration."
"NetApp is faster than other storage brands."
"Very stable and very scalable."
"NetApp has really added a lot of features over the years to improve the product and performance. They can do things now like control ingress. They can control egress."
"Integration with other NetApp solutions and merging them is manageable."
"Disaster recovery. And I like the security very much. I think they have the needed options for security. Can manage NPS using the same tools and process that we use today."
"The most valuable feature of NetApp Private Storage is out-of-the-box integration with the SAN switches. They are much easier compared to Dell solutions. Additionally, the connector that comes with the solution that allows connection back to the Cisco SAN switches is very good. In Dell, I would need to use an FCIP or CIP port that is required."
"The basic setup can be challenging when it comes to certain IP addresses and the configuration of the IP. You have to go in to different menus to makes changes and ensure it is stable."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"The storage capacity of this solution could be improved."
"They can improve its initial configuration. The initial configuration is currently very difficult. There are multiple choices or alternative ways to configure based on the use case and what you are targeting out of the device, that is, more capacity or more performance. These multiple alternatives cause a lot of confusion. They should increase the processing part of the nodes. Currently, you can cluster up to eight nodes. From my experience and the workload that I am facing in my environment currently, I would like to see either a bigger or stronger node or a larger number of nodes that can be clustered together. We formally communicated to them that we need to see either this or that, and they are working on something."
"Their technical support needs improvement in terms of reachability for the clients and response times. They should be more responsive and have more online platforms for support. They should make more technical information available online. There could be some kind of documentation community."
"When you provision a datastore auto-format takes a long time"
"I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights."
"The GUI for monitoring performance metrics could provide better visibility. For example, it doesn't let me segregate the IOPS per volume."
"There may actually be so many features that the end-user gets lost in the volume."
"NetApp Private Storage is still integrated into the ISCSI connectivity and the FC protocol. I would recommend them to migrate to the FCIP because the SAN switches are moving further to an FCIP, and are scaling out of the ISCSI connectivity. Sooner or later, that will be an issue for NetApp Private Storage. An NFCIP should be available to them moving three years down the line."
"It is not the fastest storage solution."
"They need a little more technical people in Akola. Most of the NetApp people are in Bangalore, Mumbai, or Delhi, but there are very few in Akola. I think NetApp has few technicians in Akola because they mostly rely on partners to service this area."
"I think that it should work better with Microsoft solutions, more integrated with Microsoft. We also need integrated NAS and block storage."
"I would like to have the Active-Active feature. Some competitors already have it. I would like NetApp to add it to stay competitive."
"The hardware does not last as long as it could with new software."
"The solution could improve by having better support experts. For example, they do not have clear instructions on configuration."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while NetApp Private Storage is ranked 12th in NAS with 14 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp Private Storage is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Private Storage writes "Integrates well, useful connectors, and straightforward implemention". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp Private Storage is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and NetApp FAS Series. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp Private Storage report.
See our list of best NAS vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.
