We've only faced some minor issues. For example, the documentation of some features isn't as detailed as we would like. 

The deployment could be a bit easier, because it's a bit tricky.

Hitachi should offer a distinct overview of the various storage choices. For instance, the only difference between the e590 and the e790 is the core processor's capacity, which enhances the performance of the e790.

The main issue is the management software, which requires a separate VM for full functionality. The default web GUI is less capable. 

Unlike Dell or HP where the web GUI is much more capable. The default web GUI in Apache VSP doesn't have all the functionalities, so that's the main disadvantage, perhaps the only one.

In future releases, I would like to see enhancements in the web GUI capabilities for direct management without additional PCM. Secondly, the introduction of dynamic volume management, where volume level rate settings can be defined directly without pre-defining a RAID group.

The embedded management for installation feature has neither simplified nor complicated the management process, therefore, there is room for improvement.

The complex setup phase is an area where improvements are needed.

The deployment for small and medium organizations is still possible. Their needs aren't as large as traditional market share, however, we'd like, in the future, for Hitachi to ensure that they can handle companies of all sizes.

The adoption of the newest technologies must always be prioritized. New areas of technology must be adopted by the solution to keep it relevant.

The storage can be improved. You need an operating system to run a computer. If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console.

The product can be made into a multi-controller system instead of just being a tool that offers a two-controller system to users since it is one of the areas where the product lacks. From a controller perspective, the tool should offer scalability. The tool should also offer better manageability options, considering that users have multiple storages in their environment and need to control them with the help of a single pane of glass. The solution does provide users with the option to opt for a single console from where everything can be managed, but it is not available for free. The manageability area can be improved if a single console is made available to users for free.

There is room for improvement in terms of the IP solution.

I would like to see Hitachi improve their management software. It's been three years since they introduced Ops Center, their management product, and it still hasn't reached at least 50 percent of the capability we require. We are using legacy software because the product Hitachi offers does not stack up in functionality.

Hitachi should increase the number of possible functions Ops Center can perform. For example, it is impossible to manage any kind of storage replication using this product. All competing solutions provide that, but you need to install a separate solution to manage replication in Hitachi arrays. It was not the case with legacy software, but the current solution doesn't have that.

The solution is priced higher than its competitors. 

The most common issues we face are connected to replication and parts replacement, such as when there is a disk drive failure.

Also, there is a drawback related to Hitachi's configuration flexibility. The Hitachi storage platform solution is not flexible. That means that both the Hitachi and the partner presale guys have to do a lot of work to design a solution. Once you design a solution, you can't reverse it. There is no flexibility afterward. If you are implementing a solution for a five-year plan, for example, you discuss what the customer will need in those five years. But after implementation the customer cannot then decide they need this or that changed. Customers have to decide things at the point of sale. Other solutions have better flexibility than Hitachi.

I cannot give my opinion or suggestions on what needs improvement in the product since I need to better understand it.

Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform needs to improve its scalability options where there are a few shortcomings.

One problem is that there are too many management tools for the F Series and for all the other Hitachi storage systems. There are four or five such solutions. Maybe these could be combined in the future.

Hitachi should launch some small machines in Brazil. The smallest machine here in Brazil is VSP 350, which can be quite big for some of the customers. In China, Hitachi has small models of this equipment, but those models are not available in our region. 

Its pricing is a big issue for us. We are resellers, and we face some competition from other vendors. Hitachi doesn't always have a good position in terms of the price. Its user interface is also not as good as some of the other competitors, and it can be improved.

Although the speed is good, there is always room for improvement.

I would like the fan noise to be automatically adjusted based on the drive's current workload.

In terms of ransomware, Pure Storage is probably a couple of steps ahead of Hitachi, but Hitachi does not rush in terms of features. They want to be really sure that the hardware works properly without any kind of problem in new environments, and the implementation or improvement does not affect the customer installation. They really want to make sure that customers are not affected in any way.

They should support the real Metro Cluster also for the small systems.

One improvement I am hoping for in the next release is unified storage. The other storage systems we use are unified, but E990 is not unified. Only block storage is available. To get the same functionality with the E990, you have to configure it through the NAS setup, which adds some additional costs. I would also like more capacity in a single box — expand the space up to 4 petabytes.

At the moment, I don't see any room for improvement in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series because my experience with the product is very good. The software is okay and you can manage the storage well.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is for it to be a real NAS solution because right now, you need to use a Hitachi converter called HNAS which makes the process a little bit more expensive. In my opinion, Hitachi should look into the possibility of unifying the HNAS into full storage, meaning that the HNAS should be integrated into the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series.

For the support windows to work, maybe they have to upgrade the firmware of the VSP. They changed the hardware or the disk. I don't know if it was the port blade they changed or a VM for a memory cache. Also, replacing the old target with the processor target would be fine. The old equipment is very easy to manage, and I don't have any bad commentary.

The life-cycle of the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is too short. We only had approximately four or five years out of the solution before it was rendered its end of life.

The solution is a storage Hitachi E, meaning it is an entry level enterprise solution. For mission critical issues the performance is low. 

We had issues with support, rather than the product itself. It seemed like every time we turned around it was a statement of work and we'd have to pay for something that our previous vendors would not have billed us for. I don't think that they would have even raised an eyebrow. By contrast, these guys were looking for money every time we asked for any little thing. We didn't like that.

The snapshot and clone operation functions can be made easier.

In my experience, I've encountered several limitations, particularly in the operational tasks, when dealing with unified storage. I've faced significant performance issues, especially when extending block capacities. The operational challenges, such as the console getting blocked and preventing any activity, have been a recurring issue.

For instance, extending a replicated volume from one site to another involves breaking the mirror application, adding unnecessary complexities. Unlike other products, like Dell, where extending volumes is straightforward, this process on this platform requires multiple steps, including breaking and reestablishing the application, making it time-consuming and not straightforward. 

The Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform faces challenges when it comes to features like deduplication and compression. Enabling these features can lead to processor overload, resulting in performance degradation, especially under high loads.

It faces limitations, particularly during code upgrades. If the CPU utilization exceeds 65 percent, the standard procedures for firmware or code upgrades are restricted.

We moved away from this product because we were looking for an all-flash solution, and with our G1500 at the time, perhaps two years ago, they were just proposing more of the same technology. What we wanted was a flash solution that was developed from the ground-up. I think that since then, HDS has come out with an updated product, newer than the G1500 that we had.

For us, continuing to use products from this vendor would have required having a solution that was revamped as flash storage from the ground-up, as opposed to a historical frame that's just evolved over the years.

This product should be easier to install and set up.

We have not been able to procure more discs for upcoming projects and this has been a problem for us. Not having additional storage is going to be an issue. The solution is at its end of life and will be replaced soon.

Pricing could be better because the cost is very high.

In terms of new features, I would be interested to see deduplication added in their next release.

I don't really know what parts of the product could be improved because it works well for me in testing and installations as a reseller. I would need more experience with it as a storage solution. However, I have not heard customers complaining.

One thing that can be improved is the price because it is a bit expensive. It would be easier to market and for clients to buy if the licensing were not so costly. It is not really a feature of the product but it is something that can be better.

The only feature I can think of is that it would be nice if it had data a duplication feature as an option. We have to use other products for this.

The Management Interface needs to be improved. Hitachi Vantara has invested heavily in improving their management interface, however, they still have a way to go to catch up with many of their competitors.

This solution is equipped with virtualization technology inside the storage box. Other companies like TMS have virtual technology outside of their storage boxes. IBM has a SAN Volume Controller that allows us to virtualize any type of storage whether it's on the same label or not. This is not the case with Hitachi. 

With Hitachi, everything that regards the user experience has a big room for improvement. 

• The user experience is pretty bad in Hitachi. 
• A lot of mandatory tasks take a long time to work through.
• Compared to other storage vendors, there is a big disadvantage to Hitachi. 
• Automation has room for improvement in Hitachi.

Something about the NetSure schedule and NetSure management would be good because in my machine everything was only manual. My staff was needed to write automation around the machine to solve the issue. 

Before the snapshot itself, residing on another server was more extensive. If they can do the snapshot in the data pool, i.e. the capacity pool, it will be better for the customer and their matchup vs. the competition.

The software has always been lagging a bit compared to the newer features. It usually takes a cycle for it to catch up.

Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform's GUI could be better.

I think what needs to be improved is to simplify the complexities that are under storage so that it will be easier to work with Hitachi products. I would also like to see better pricing and more discounts. 

Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform 5000 Series is not easy to use and this needs improvement. This product also has a complex setup and is not easy to implement. Snapshot operations for this product could also be improved.

Compared to others, Hitachi products are more complex and not user-friendly. The interface should be simplified and made easier to use. For instance, the EMC Unity series is easier to manage.

In the next release of this solution, it should support NVMe.

An important improvement for this solution is cloud integration (OpenStack), as well as integration with VVoL technologies, Docker, Kubernetes, and Red Hat OpenShift.

In the next version, I would like to see more intelligence. I would like to see backup repository, and the Hitachi storage system as the main storage system without any further applications, without any further layers. I need the data protection layer to protect the data at the right time and at the right place.

I think the management should be improved, because it is not very user-friendly at all. I also think the support could be better - at least for mid-range users. I think historically Hitachi systems are made for really big organizations like banks or insurance companies. Usually those companies have dedicated personnel dealing with the storage. And because they're very valuable clients, their support contracts are much more tailored to their businesses. Since this program is more aimed towards smaller companies, they don't have support solutions for mid-range companies.

I also think that their management is not very user-friendly. If this wasn't the case, more support wouldn't be necessary. It's a very reliable system, but the whole management user interface is very unfriendly. I know they're aware of that. They have a lot of data of management solutions, but none of them yet have reached sovereignty yet.

We have read in the latest newsletters that in 2020 there is going to be more data, more than four hundred zettabytes. It's a huge amount of data and you will need the right platform to process it. More than people, we will need a platform that can process that amount of data in less than a millisecond. So we are looking for a high-speed storage enterprise, such as VSP.

If you compare to other solutions, Hitachi is more complex, but the platform is improving and it's not as difficult as it used to be.

We are facing new technologies such as Container by Google. It's the new way of Application Virtualization. I think that Hitachi and other companies should follow these technologies for integration with new technologies such as container base and their products. I think that cloud integration is important with vVol technologies from VMware.

There will be many challenges, but we need more integration between F Storage and new technology for Cloud, vVol, and Container.

I would like the interface to be simplified more than it is. The interface can be improved with new technologies such as HTML5, which is being used by some storage vendors.

Hitachi interface management is not as easy as the EMC Unity series. It's better to use HTML5 for the management systems.

The solution needs to offer more support in our region. It's also quite expensive.

Since we can't get support, it would be helpful if there was more documentation online to help users navigate the solution when they run into issues or have questions.

In terms of what could be improved, it could use a better, faster web console and other consoles. It is so boring waiting, waiting and waiting for it to refresh. Additionally, there could be more rate groups for it, or different rate groups. Right now there are limited options in regards to the rate group.

The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage.

Technical support needs to be improved.

Lowering the price of this solution would be an improvement.

I would like to see an audit account set up such that the user can log in, see the configuration, and see the logs, but they cannot make any changes.

Its usability can be improved. It can have more management features. Its management tools lack features.

They need to focus on a single UI, then the multiple components.

They should look at the cost because there are other vendors who offer the same cost with more features.

I would like to see the UI flexibility improved, as most of the vendors are providing a better UI.