We performed a comparison between IBM VersaStack and Oracle SuperCluster based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and others in Converged Infrastructure."Replication and DR implementation became faster."
"The solution has high IOPS and the I/O is important because it gives us more transactions per second."
"The combination of Cisco's architecture and IBM's flash technology. Cisco provides FI technology which provides one simple architecture. IBM's flash technology is fast."
"The performance is significantly improved, and the administration is easy because it is a single platform end-to-end."
"Our primary use case is for E-Business Suite applications the applications for the government, and most of the applications that use an HCM."
"In this setup, the traffic is distributed among the nodes, enhancing the overall performance compared to a scenario where all traffic is directed to a single server."
"SuperCluster is basically a combination of Oracle, with Exadata and Compute node features, so it is a computing cluster that is integrated in a single infrastructure such that we don't need a separate solution for the application database, the data storage database, and everything else the application needs."
"Unix is not as easy for the users, it needs more maintenance and costs extra."
"A valuable feature is the Exadata Storage appliance, optimized for database queries."
"Because it's classified as an engineered system, it's all integrated, it's all supported by one vendor. We don't have to go to multiple vendors for support, it's all integrated under Oracle."
"Scalability and technical support."
"Raw data mapping for storage should be a given option."
"The solution should improve deduplication to get a lot of savings."
"There are many areas for improvement. For example, better guidance in terms of troubleshooting issues relating to ZFS, as well as better tools/diagnostics for monitoring that specific component, to better identify potential issues. Hardware monitoring via OEM 13.2 is not 100 percent, as Ops Center is still required in some instances."
"It's not working as we expected. We thought it would be fast and reliable but we are not getting the reliability. It's not stable."
"We have faced network connectivity issues."
"Not a very user friendly solution."
"They may have made some improvements but based on the version that I am using, it is a little complicated because it is based on the Unix Operating system."
"Speaking from a business perspective, our main problem is that our particular edition of SuperCluster is now at end-of-life status, making it obsolete and impossible to get support for. This presents a challenge for us, as finding a path to our next solution is not easy."
"If they had an application that centralized the administration, not about the monitoring, but for the configuration, it would be better."
"If it had capabilities to integrate really well with DB2 or SQL Server or Hitachi SANs, those sort of things, that would be a real benefit. Right now, it's fully supported only under all Oracle infrastructure."
IBM VersaStack is ranked 8th in Converged Infrastructure with 3 reviews while Oracle SuperCluster is ranked 7th in Converged Infrastructure with 12 reviews. IBM VersaStack is rated 8.0, while Oracle SuperCluster is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM VersaStack writes "A very high IOPS that gives more I/O transactions per second". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle SuperCluster writes "Great performance all round, but lacking in certain cloud features". IBM VersaStack is most compared with Dell VxBlock System, whereas Oracle SuperCluster is most compared with Oracle Private Cloud Appliance.
See our list of best Converged Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Converged Infrastructure 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.
