We performed a comparison between HPE EVA and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There have been no fail-stop failures for the last five years."
"The solution's most valuable feature is storage provisioning, which allows me to easily provision the disk space on the servers."
"HPE has reliable support for HDD replacement."
"It is very stable."
"IBM FlashSystem is the best solution for storage virtualization."
"Stability-wise, this solution is fine."
"The most valuable features were the performance of the array, i.e., very low latency and high IOPS. Plus, the management interface is very easy to use."
"High availability and enhanced security; Proven dependability; Data compression with hardware acceleration; Advanced copy services features are all in this product."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"The compression and deduplication features are the most valuable."
"The speed, performance, and stability are the best features of IBM FlashSystem."
"It's very easy to manage."
"I faced some issues during the disk replacement process in HPE EVA."
"Performance could probably be improve with faster controllers, but it is already an old device. We do have performance problems now, but it is a rather old device, so we have what we have."
"The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool."
"They can improve its initial configuration. The initial configuration is currently very difficult. There are multiple choices or alternative ways to configure based on the use case and what you are targeting out of the device, that is, more capacity or more performance. These multiple alternatives cause a lot of confusion. They should increase the processing part of the nodes. Currently, you can cluster up to eight nodes. From my experience and the workload that I am facing in my environment currently, I would like to see either a bigger or stronger node or a larger number of nodes that can be clustered together. We formally communicated to them that we need to see either this or that, and they are working on something."
"GUI interface should be enhanced more as there is some issues in copy services."
"It is slightly more expensive, however, it all depends on your supplier."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"I know they have a flashcopy manager, but it is extra software, an additional license, and some customers don't like to add addition costs to their infrastructure. If IBM could create, or include snapshot management within the GUI, that would really be helpful."
"The generic functionality of IBM FlashSystem, IBM always dismisses using file share or sharing protocols inside their storage hardware, and they only focus on the block-level storage."
"Additional licenses might be added for the fundamental licenses, such as those for copying and flash copies."
HPE EVA is ranked 8th in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 4 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 2nd in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) with 106 reviews. HPE EVA is rated 8.6, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HPE EVA writes "Has the ability to automatically deal with faulty disks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". HPE EVA is most compared with HPE 3PAR StoreServ and HPE StorageWorks MSA, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF. See our HPE EVA vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
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.
