We had a Dell EqualLogic P4000 Series SAN that we no longer used for live customer data because it was so old. We used to have one Dell server per customer, which was unsustainable in terms of the time, effort, and power it takes to manage so many servers. It wasn't just a technology change—it's an entirely different way of thinking. 

This wasn't our specialty. We did it for one or two companies because they asked and developed from there. As we started providing this service to more customers, we got more sophisticated. Eventually, we reached a point where we decided to build a proper hosted server storage array.

In the last decade we have used a vast selection of competitors to Tintri. Compellant, XioTech, Dell, HPE, Pure Storage, and Tegile before and after its acquisition. Currently, we only recommend Tintri to our customers.

Of course, we do have customers who have multi-vendor solutions, and we're able to support them, but our current recommendation for storage is Tintri. It's been like that for a few years, and I expect it will continue like that into the future.

I was previously on NetApp, and then we looked pretty thoroughly when we went to Tintri. I looked at Pure. I looked at Tegile. We got 3PAR in our data center as well for databases. We were all over the place. We looked at NetApp again.

At the time, we were very much a NetApp business. We had five racks of NetApps. The guy that got me looking at storage was the guy from Pure, and it wasn't Tintri at all. The guy from Pure said, "Well what if I could do your five racks of storage in like 4U? And I was like, "4U? You're kidding me. No way. You can't do that." So, I started looking at Pure. I liked Pure first and was looking at them, but then they had this big thing with their iSCSI. I was like, "Ah, I don't want to change all my NFS and networks." So, I got ready to shop more. 

We looked at Tegile, and then we looked at NetApp, but NetApp would have required a forklift. I just didn't like what they were doing, and then we came to Tintri. It was really impressive. The guys who had solved virtualization at VMware had left and gone to solve the issue for storage. Their storage was great, and the product was great. The product was just amazing. At the end of the day, that's what it came down to, and when you add that with the pricing, you can't lose.

I took a lot of flak internally in my company by standing by Tintri because we had bought all these Tintris, and then Tintri went bankrupt. I stood by them and said, "Hey, let's not jump ship." A lot of people I knew ripped out their Tintri and put in a Pure because they were like, "I have to have something I can build. I have to get more." And I was like, "Just wait, just wait. Trust me." I waited, and I saw Western and DDN go at it. Either one of them was going to be great. DDN won, and DDN has been a great partner. I've seen them advance, buy, and try to move the needle. That does make me very happy to know that it's in a much safer, stable place with DDN because I was getting the side eyes from C-level executives saying, "Hey, we just put all this money into Tintri, and they just went belly up." So, to see the validity of my faith in the product was good. It was very good to see that somebody else saw the same thing, bought it, and took it to that stable level. I was very happy with it.

We were using HPE Nimble Storage earlier, and we were looking for a better-performing solution with a faster processing speed and a single pane of glass management.

We had both CORAID and EMC, but all Tintri now. This is hard for me, we have had so many issues with our past storage systems, CORAID (which we have totally decommissioned) and our EMC storage systems, that our Tintri systems have just been perfect. I know that sound a bit biased, but it is not, I have been a storage administrator for almost 20 years and the past eight months with two Tintri units has been hands down the best.

We didn't have other storage, at that time, that was VM-ready, such as Pure Storage and others. What we mostly had was some sort of NFS storage. The storage that we were using was old and not really VM-centric. When we moved to Tintri, it provided the best solution for everything. 

We switched because of performance. Isilon wasn't really meant for VM.

In the past, we used a typical SAN solution. We made the switch because of the simplicity of the design. We can use the same network devices that have a large number of connections, instead of SAN switches. That's one less layer. And because the deployment is really really fast.

We still use EMC VNX appliances. The switch was due to performance limitations introduced by VDI and VM cloning.

When we had to look at support renewal costs for our existing hardware vendor, they were very high which the prompted us to look into different hardware vendors.

No previous solution was used.

We have an all Flash Equallogic unit and the Tintri is much faster. The Equallogic also does not de-dupe the data or have any other feature like the Tintri does.

We previously used Dell Equilogic. It was a continuous management headache with very high latency. Tintri is much easier to manage -- there's virtually none -- and the latency is only in the nanoseconds.

This system was used for a new project.

Dell Equalogic, EMC

EMC was at end of life and support costs were going through the roof. Equalogic performance was failing to meet our needs.

We were using NetApp FAS3240. They are older models and too slow. Their OnCommand Balance product never lived up to expected monitoring.

Before, we used a NetApp FAS 2552. It was very slow and not so good to manage. It caused performance Issues. Then, we had a PoC with the Tintri 880 Series. It was much faster than the NetApp. After the PoC, we bought an all-flash 5060. It is very fast.

As an example a virtual machine needs 25-30 seconds to boot with NetApp; with the Tintri, it takes 1-2 seconds.

We have storage latency from 0.60 ms.

We previously used a NetApp SAN which was ageing and not performing, so we needed a new device. Tintri was recommended by our third-party.

We switched to save cost, improve performance, free-up existing resources for other tasks, and to gain VMware and RHEV-M support.

We were using a NetApp, however its performance was severely lacking and we required a larger storage footprint.

We used NetApp and had nothing but problems with slow speeds, with stability, with needing to hire consultants for management and upgrades. It was an expensive solution that didn't deliver.

HP EVA, which is not admin friendly.

We used Hitachi VSP, but the support renewal is very costly. We got good feedback with the first contact with the Tintri sales team and we did a POC right after that!

We have been using NetApp for several years and made the switch for increased performance. The performance of the T820 exceed that of our NetApp FAS8040 with 46x 10k RPM drives with 5x SSD drives for Flash Pool.

Yes, our network storage was on Netapp / IBM N series. It was a great system when we first implemented our virtualised environment back in 2007, however the performance of the system and design ethos did not suit the workload we wanted to put to it. For us, business evolved and system user demands increased. We needed to move out of the space of just having network storage and move into the space of having high performance and flexible network storage.

Yes, we used diferent kinds of storages but they were unable to deliver the IOPS we needed.

We were using a hyper-converged solution that wasn't scaling with our limited budget and space.

We were utilizing an EMC VNX which worked well for our day to day workloads, but was not optimized for VDI. That was what lead us to the Tintri solution in 2013.

We switched to VMstore get better performance, VM-aware storage, and improved QoS.

We switched because we encountered reliability problems. The cost of scaling out the solution to overcome these issues was excessive.

We used HDS, but its cost and technical skill level of implementation was too high for our IT staff. Also, the introduction of fiber channel meant a big change to our infrastructure. Tintri was simple, and plugged into our environment with minimal changes.

We did – NetApp. We switched for a variety of reasons – cost, we felt like the technology was old and they were trying to retrofit to keep up with emerging technologies, we didn't like the licensing model they used (every feature seemed to require a license).

We did not want to be locked down by a specific vendor or product, so we switched to Tintri.

We switched for low IOPS and cost of management.

Tintri replaced an EMC VNX 5700. Cost, performance, and ease of management were the primary reasons for the replacement.

Yes, we had NetApp FAS: switched because of performance but, worst at all, support cost after the first 3 years. Unsusteinable and with no justification

We used Atlantis ILIO. We switched because Tintri gave us similar speed at a good price point on physical disks as opposed to the Atlantis approach of using memory for the disks. We also got a lot more insight into VM behavior.

Earlier we used NetApp, but spent a lot of time managing volumes and tuning the system. We also got complaints mainly from clients running SQL Server that response times were very slow. Those issues were really difficult to troubleshoot. Not anymore!