We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and HPE 3PAR StoreServ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"The solution is scalable."
"It's helped us because we've changed fundamentally what we talk about. We don't talk about storage and different tiers of storage anymore nor do we talk about servers. We talk now about applications and how applications impact the business and end users."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"The performance is very good."
"The setup is very easy to manage and configure. The initial setup and takes one hour more or less."
"The valuable features for data management include deduplication and compression without performance impact, and the ability to virtualize old storage, making migration seamless."
"The efficiency ratio is just as high as advertised. It's very high relative to other storage solutions as well. The compression and deduplication capabilities are also very high."
"There are no significant challenges in terms of scalability, and it can accommodate larger storage capacities compared to other storage solutions."
"The technical support is great."
"The hybrid array provides scaleable, predictable, high performance with no capacity constraints."
"It's best features are its reliability and stability."
"It's a really stable solution. We have no problems with the customer, no negative feedback from them on this."
"Technical support for both 3PAR and Dell EMC in my country, Iran, is very difficult because we are under sanctions."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution, stability, and the performance work well for us."
"We like something called Virtual Volumes and how we can do thin provisioning."
"I like the speed capabilities that it provides. The deduplication features definitely have some huge potential. The latest firmware, where they've enabled compression for workloads that aren't very good for deduplication, I can definitely see huge potential there."
"Its snapshot capability is the most valuable feature, because replicate our databases from production to nonproduction for development. This allows us to do it very quickly."
"The product stands on its own in heavy enterprise environments."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"The software layer has to improve."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure."
"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."
"In the next version I would like to see additional features like artificial intelligence and an increase in the amount of data it can store."
"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."
"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."
"Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform needs to improve its scalability options where there are a few shortcomings."
"The initial setup was difficult, as we don't have access to assistance. We had some issues around configuration. We needed to know things like what kind of rate is the best, or what kind of replication is ideal. We had to seek out answers online to get the information we needed."
"For mission critical issues the performance is low."
"n future releases, I would like to see enhancements in the web GUI capabilities for direct management without additional PCM."
"The solution could be improved in regard to space reclamation by adding automation."
"We did a firmware upgrade, and it brought the whole sandbox down. It was supposed to be done transparently, and that did not happen. It was not like we did it on our own; we had support set it up for us."
"HPE could improve by making an old flash system in order to compete with the current market. For the solution to be more competitive in the mid-range market they could increase the performance."
"The price is a little bit high."
"I need flexibility for interoperability across multiple platforms, not just HPE."
"Its price is a bit high for adding another tree."
"It is suitable for medium-sized businesses and data centers with less number of users and less important data. It is not really an enterprise-level solution. It needs more capacity. It is also not really stable. It should be more stable. It should also support any server model. It is really weak in this area."
"We would like to see a bigger integration with the Nimble Storage solution, so we can take our smaller regional companies and be able to send them into our bigger data centers and have everything work seamlessly."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 48 reviews while HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 9th in All-Flash Storage with 299 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "Leverages a 3DC architecture with VSP for disaster recovery, offering a 100% data availability guarantee". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE 3PAR StoreServ writes "The product's technical support is outstanding as I can reach someone right away". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series, whereas HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and HPE StoreOnce. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors, best NAS vendors, and best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage 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.
3PAR is SAS-based storage. The industry is already moving away from the 35-year-old SCSI-way, so it's not a good idea to buy any product with it.
I'm not sure about Hitachi, but as far as I know, they also have SAS backend, so, the obvious answer to the question "Which should I choose?" is "none of them".
My recommendation is - choose other vendors (or models) which provide end-to-end NVMe support and make a choice between them.
Hitachi, if cost and performance for mission-critical apps are high priority.
Otherwise, HPW 3PAR (or now HPE Primera) will be the best all-around for cost and performance. Plus, HPE's Storage Insight is the best on the market
It depends on what kind of requirement you will use with this All-Flash Storage Array.
Usually, high random IOPS is a must for AFA, however, recently there are more and more requirements that are talking about low latency as the key in the virtualization environment. So if you would like just for high random IOPS and MBPs, considering the SAS SSD AFA will be enough, but if lower latency will be your major impact in the environment, NVMe AFA will be the best.
https://blog.qsan.com/why-does...
NImble Storage from HPE or Primera, Hitachi sold their disk division. HPE 3Par will be announced soon as the end of life.
Instead, Primera has been created (Primera has the best from Nimble and 3Par). I hope it helps.
I think that you need to meet the needs looking to the best fit to your environment. Looking into Hitachi Vantara portfolio, you will see entry level storage to enterprise. At my point of view, performance, reliability and scalability should be considered.
Another consideration above performance (IOPS and latency), you must to provide the correct profile, such as block size, random or sequencial data, cache hit, replication and snapshots needs. All those informations provides a better solution for your environment.
Dont you forget about the scalability, I think that you must to know how you are growing to fit the best equipment.
Take a Dorado 3000 V6 form Huawei. Huawei OceanStor Dorado V6 all-flash storage sets new benchmarks in storage performance and reliability. The OceanStor Dorado delivers best-in-class performance of up to 20,000,000 IOPS. With the AI chips they are the first in the industry to deliver storage systems that get more intelligent
during the application operations.
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series.
Hi,
Just assess Pure Storage box as well and also if you are focusing on some specific workload do mention it while discussing with the Pure Storage team like OLTP, DB(SQL/Oracle) or any platform service, etc. At last, your budget is also a major factor while evaluating. As all Flash Arrays do cost more.