We performed a comparison between IBM XIV and NetApp FAS Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp, IBM, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and others in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network)."Installation is amazingly easy."
"The performance and robustness of the systems are very good."
"As it spreads, a chuck of 1MB across the board means using all available spindles on the backend."
"Hands down, this is the easiest storage platform on the market to manage."
"IBM XIV's most valuable features are NVME, especially when it comes to de-duplication, compression, and responsiveness."
"Very easy to produce reporting data (Snaps). Very easy and fast for provisioning devices and Remote mirroring."
"It is good to have a unified storage where you can have block and file level protocols."
"I like the unified management feature because sometimes you end up running a single protocol on the entire system."
"It has a very good implementation of the Active Directory services, so implementation into a Windows network is easy."
"Has rock solid reliability and is easy to use."
"The solution has tiers inside which means we do not only need to use SSDs."
"Better performance and lower costs."
"It is very easy to expand disks and manage CIFS."
"Ability to use mirroring and SnapVault have made backup no longer necessary."
"This product was not a good fit for our organization as we have a ton of latency sensitive applications and XIV was not able to keep up with IO + latency demand."
"IBM XIV's scalability is adequate for our requirements, but because it's modular, you can't scale to larger requirements."
"I would rather have a web GUI served directly from the unit, and a CLI accessible directly through SSH."
"The change form synchronous mirroring to asynchronous (and vice versa) without reconfiguration from scratch would be helpful."
"Until the drive is replaced, the pool_resizing is locked."
"I encountered stability (performance) issues during enclosure or disk rebuild. Also some power supply issues due to malfunctions of circuits. Sometimes "internal" Snap sessions hang and consume pool capacity."
"It may need more flexibility to fight with other competing arrays."
"Needs to add wizards for newer, inexperienced users."
"The adoption of flash by NetApp has also been lagging behind the trendsetters, like TMS, Nimble, and others."
"Dedicated storage efficiency accelerators could improve the overall performance of the system."
"We are not able to connect to the support of NetApp from Sudan. We have to go through many agents for support, which makes it difficult."
"NetApp FAS Series could improve by being more secure."
"We no longer have OEM support in South Africa which is not helpful, it can be difficult. They should add an office back to the country because it was better."
"The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth."
IBM XIV is ranked 10th in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 6 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 1st in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 96 reviews. IBM XIV is rated 7.6, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM XIV writes "Using it behind the SAN volume controller, latency is predictable and it is reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". IBM XIV is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and IBM FlashSystem.
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.