Dell PowerScale (Isilon) Reviews

I use the solution in my company for unstructured data storage.

The most valuable features of the solution are Isilon InsightIQ for reporting issues and the extra ransomware protection features.

In my company, we have lots of huge amounts of data, around several petabytes, so we needed a way to have some responsive clusters with failover. In our company, we also have to give some reports to get some upgrades for the clusters recently as it is easier for us if we can give a look out to the management about how much research is done by us and how much space is required to do research. Our company has several tech people in our research facilities in Germany at the moment, and we have lost a lot of data to ransomware. One of the key features my company expects from the product is that it reduces ransomware attacks.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) offers a sense of resilience, cyber resiliency, and security to my organization, especially with the third-party add-ons.

In terms of the benefits we experienced from the use of the product, I would say that our organization has different researchers. In our company, we have every operating system in use for different workloads. I can imagine that when our company deals with file-sharing features, the tool is way easier to use, and we can perform the procedure smoothly. The tool is also easy to deploy.

In terms of my experience with Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and its licensing part, cost of implementation, and costs of ownership, I don't have much information because our company has only been using the tool for over a year. The documentation is easy, and the management is easy and fast, so my company has had a really good experience with the tool.

The cost of ownership of Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is good because our company is able to save a lot of energy, especially in terms of manpower and electricity. My company has managed to get down from four racks to half a rack.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) has helped reduce and eliminate data silos, and it has helped our company shut down several single data storages. In our company, we had an old Dell PowerVault MD Storage, and through the PowerScale OneFS cluster, we could shut down a lot of network-attached storage devices. My company wants to consolidate everything into a central data storage and be able to manage our small team.

Based on the assessment of the tool's flexibility for supporting various data workloads while keeping them protected, I would say that we are in the process of migration. My company is in the process of migrating some video data and so on, but as of now, we use the product's services in the backend for containerization.

The product has helped reduce overall risk in my company since we just have one cluster to manage. Primarily, it is easier to have an overview and keep the clusters up to date.

When envisioning the future of our containerized solutions in terms of cloud integration, I see that in Germany considering a fully cloud-based approach can be hard. Mostly, Germans don't like to put any data on the cloud. I believe that users may opt for a private cloud or a hybrid strategy.

Based on a few key factors and the decision-making process, I would say that my company would choose an environment that offers the most amount of security features for our containerized applications since we have research data while sometimes, we also have data that is used for thesis, so there are areas where we can't afford anyone to get access to our data.

There are some missing features in the product, especially when our company needs to do some tape backup, and we see that the tool doesn't have integration capabilities. Our company has to buy another third-party software deal with tape backup. 

It is a little hard to implement Dell PowerScale CloudPools. In our company, we would like to have another storage tier for data access, but it is getting too expensive when it comes to the licensing part of the product.

Sometimes, it can be bothersome to get through from the first level of support to the second one and from the second level to the third level of support. To deal with a set of similar errors, it would be great if Dell could allow users to skip some support stages. The reason a user may be forced to go through different levels of support can be because there is no automated support available to be offered.

I have been using Dell PowerScale (Isilon) for over a year. My company is a customer of the tool.

My company has never had any issues with the stability of the product.

The product's scalability feature is super easy to use.

My company has used the technical support of the tool. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

My company deals with big companies that offer storage solutions. My company does not have similar products from different vendors, so we deal with different vendors and provide different solutions for different scenarios.

The product's initial setup phase was really easy because our company had technicians coming over. I feel the technicians could do better, and so now my company has a new support partner who installs the hardware. At the time our company purchased Dell PowerScale (Isilon), we had a third-party company install the product in our company. Our organization called in a third-party company to introduce us to how to install Dell PowerScale (Isilon). There were some issues after the tool's setup phase that had to be fixed, and so it got quite a little messy because of the aforementioned problems.

We received several good recommendations from partners of our organization in Germany, after which we dived into Dell PowerScale (Isilon), considering that my company is in the commercial research area, where we have to deal with contracts. My company believes that if we have contracts with Dell, then it would be easier for us to process data. The last time our company upgraded our compute, we entered into another contract with another vendor, which was not good. My company is looking into entering into more contracts with Dell.

Considering the product still needs to add a few features, I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to store camera video surveillance and hospital X-rays.

The most valuable features of the solution are flexibility and ease of implementation.

It would be good to have synchronized mirroring between two clusters without using a third-party program.

I have been using Dell PowerScale (Isilon) for three years.

The solution's stability is really good, and I haven't had a crash for two years. The solution works just fine even if a node goes down.

The solution's scalability is very good, and you can easily scale it.

Sometimes, the support team throws me around before I talk to the right person. However, the situation has been much better for the past year.

Positive

Our customers previously used NetApp. They switched to Dell PowerScale because it was easy to use. In my opinion, Dell PowerScale is better than NetApp because it's faster and more hybrid.

The solution's initial setup is easy for me because it's been the same implementation from the beginning. However, it's not so easy when the customers do it themselves.

The solution reduces our customers' power consumption by around 30% and saves them rack space.

The solution's ability to interface with AI models and algorithms is very good.

The solution has been really good for helping our organization manage and run our storage from any location.

The solution has helped to reduce or eliminate data silos, which has enabled our customers to add new nodes by themselves.

The solution's flexibility for supporting various data workloads while keeping them protected has been really good.

I've deployed Dell PowerScale for 300 terabytes to about 800 terabytes sized environments.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

I've worked on multiple cases, like cache, performance, and application cases.

Dell PowerScale has the SmartConnect and SmartConnect Pro features. That's why I like the product.

Dell is an expansive product. Everyone has a Dell product.

The improvement should be in AI. Everything is going towards AI. If they improved the AI features, it would be easier for customers to handle.

If some customers have expired products and cannot renew them, Dell should provide knowledge-based articles to help them handle issues like replication, node issues, or hardware issues. They have storage admin engineers who can handle it.

AI could also help with things like searching.  For example, if I want Anil's profile, I should be able to see everything on the screen. AI could also help with common issues like performance issues. If you type "performance issues" into their portal, it should tell you what needs to be checked, what shouldn't be checked, and where to check it, whether the issue is from the storage end, the host end, or the switch end.

Dell can improve in terms of support. Dell hires freshers who don't have much experience. They should resolve issues faster. At Accenture, we reach out to customers within 15 minutes if they have any issues.

I worked with it for five years. In 2019, Isilon was changed to PowerScale.

Scalability is very good in terms of Dell products.

The tech support is good.

Neutral

It requires more manpower for the installation. More than two people are needed for the process. 

It takes around four hours for a full deployment. It is easy to integrate with other systems.

It will require some maintenance. It depends on the hardware.

Users can save time and money with PowerScale. There is around 15% to 20% time savings.

Dell products are expensive. They are more expensive than other competitors.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. If you have a small environment, I can recommend Isilon PowerScale.

I would recommend it to others because Dell is a very good company, and we can blindly trust Dell products. It's number five, I think, or six in a global ranking.

TGen is a nonprofit biomedical research institute. Our focus is primarily on genomics, translating discoveries in the field of genomics into treatments for patients.

It is central to our data storage of scientific data. We sequence the human genomes of folks with different diseases, primarily cancer but also other disorders, e.g., rare childhood disorders and people with mitochondrial diseases as well as neurological diseases. When you do this, it generates a considerable amount of data. Each time that a whole genome sequence is run, you generate anywhere from four to eight terabytes of data. For example, if you are looking at 1,000 patients, that can be anywhere from four to eight petabytes of data. TGen has about seven petabytes of storage being used for storing these genomes, which is a fair amount.

Isilon is an on-prem, scale-out storage. The nodes are linked together through a back-end high-speed interconnect. 

We are running current versions of software on the node. It has versions now. The nomenclature is sometimes not the easiest to follow, because they still like to rebrand things. 

It has given us the capability to focus on our prime objective, which is science, without having to necessarily be concerned about the back-end infrastructure that powers it. This is something we are always looking to achieve: Being able to focus on our prime mission without having technology get in the way. Scientists don't want to learn all about your storage system. They just want to do their science.

It is a critical piece for storing scientific data for our Institute. It is where we put our most valuable and precious data. We also leverage it for work on administrative data, spreadsheets, Word documents, etc. So, it is flexible. We access it via NFS and SMB. Those are the two primary methods of access that we use along with some others, such as S3 for some particular use cases.

Deploying and managing storage at a petabyte scale using Isilon is extremely simple. The user interface for management tasks is intuitive. The documentation is thorough and good, and if you get stuck, then the support is very capable. Overall, I have confidence that we can easily deploy, manage, and maintain systems without needing a huge amount of expertise to facilitate them.

PowerScale has helped us by consolidating the data without having it dispersed. Prior to this solution, we would have many different physically separate storage solutions. To do the science, sometimes data needs to go from one place to another. Moving your data at a petabyte scale, or even at hundreds of terabytes, is very time-consuming and expensive. By having the consolidation within these clusters, it has enabled us to very easily access and compute data without having to push it around to a bunch of different places.

We have a "thinly provisioned" workforce. One of the crucial aspects is that we can continue to scale a solution without having to add more humans to take care of it.

There is a reason that we chose this platform to store this priceless data. We know it is resilient. It also provides data protection that helps me sleep at night. 

One of the most important factors about it is you can manage a lot of storage without a lot of people. Therefore, ease of management is really important for us because we are a nonprofit. We don't have a huge IT staff to support a pretty substantial IT infrastructure. So, ease of management is always a really crucial consideration.

Another aspect of the management that is super important is having the CloudIQ feature to monitor performance and other data remotely. We have four clusters that we manage. Having all those clusters, being able to have a single dashboard to take a look at the health of everything every morning, helps out a lot.

One of the nice things is that they have several different node types spread all the way from super high performance, flash-based storage nodes through more of what we consider an archive tier. So, we are able to use technologies, what Dell EMC has labeled SmartPools that will tier data automatically between different types of storage. So, we can ensure that hot data resides on the high-performance storage. Whereas, once data has gotten colder, then it can be pushed off to the low-performance storage to help control costs.

We have used the solution’s support for the S3 protocol, but in a limited use case. We are looking to expand that because we are doing more work towards cloud-based solutions. So, having the flexibility of S3 is important as we design new workloads that will be more cloud-centric. They will be able to use that protocol to access data on nodes without necessarily having to go back and refactor everything.

It is good and efficient when maximizing storage utilization. The operating system behind it, called OneFS, provides granularity, data protection, and control. So, you can actually adjust the amount of overhead being consumed for your data protection, depending upon what your needs are. It is pretty efficient at keeping data protected. At the end of the day, that is one of the most important things: Knowing that your data is safe.

Dell EMC keeps adding more features to the solution’s OneFS operating system. We have been iterating with them for quite some time. The solution is continually improving and becoming more robust and reliable. One of the latest things that really helped us out was the ability to perform upgrades without having cluster-wide outages, which is huge because we don't want to shut down operations unless we absolutely have to. Having that was a really big win for us. This saved us time. More importantly, it has kept our labs functioning during upgrades, as opposed to having shut down sequencers for a day while we go through and upgrade everything, which is important.

Something that still could be improved upon is adding additional node types of different sizes to facilitate a better way to run in distributed offices. For example, we have a lab up in Flagstaff, but they don't have a lot of IT infrastructure. Therefore, it is not really appropriate to run this system at their location. So, we run it down here in Phoenix. It would be nice if there was a smaller solution that we could deploy up there that was still as cost-effective as the bigger solutions.

The thing that they are working on now, and we are following closely is more native cloud integrations. The way that we envision workloads in the future is around moving compute to data instead of the other way around. So, we would like to have a single pane glass to manage storage across a variety of different platforms, including native cloud. That would be awesome.

We were using PowerScale before Dell EMC even bought Isilon. So, we have been using it for some time now. 

We have run this product for so many years now. I can count on one hand the number of times where we have had any kind of issue that impacted availability. Usually, it turned out not to be the cluster but something else. It is extremely robust and continues to function.

We are not super aggressive in patching or anything. We believe that stability is number one. Availability is just of the most critical importance so that is really where we focus.

Once you have set up your initial cluster, adding more capacity to it is extremely easy. It is so easy that one of our salespeople added a node to the cluster. Having a salesperson do something technical is always a little bit interesting, but they didn't have any problems at all. "Boom," and it works. 

This is one of the nice things that goes back to that whole ease of management. Being able to add additional capacity is pretty simple. You just buy the nodes and plug them in, as long as you have enough of the right kind of node types. However, if you meet all that criteria, it is that easy to do.

Since it can scale so easily, as long as I have money to buy more nodes, I can grow it as big as I need to. That is important in our business. As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, and as those technologies evolve, the amount of data generation never gets smaller. It just always seems to get bigger. This is one of the absolute key aspects: We can grow on demand without having to forklift stuff. 

I have done forklifting, and it is a drag. I don't want to do that again. We want to just keep being able to grow as we need to ensure our customers have the resources that they need to do their work.

I have worked pretty closely with their engineers over a number of years. They have implemented several different items that we have suggested.

The technical support is excellent. They have good support teams within Dell EMC, but also the VARs that we use have been extremely good at helping us as well. We kind of have multiple different angles of support, and that is one of the reasons that we continue to invest in Dell EMC. They have a model that we can rely on for getting the right answers.

I would rate the technical support as a nine out of 10, because nobody is perfect.

Positive

We got our first cluster in 2008. Before that, we were using JBODs connected to Linux hosts. This was a homegrown solution. Frankly, there wasn't really anything available at that time that could meet our needs which didn't cost millions of dollars. So, we went from something that was good enough to something that was much better.

We switched because we needed something that scaled much larger than what we could build and comfortably support. That was the number one reason. Number two was, at that time, I was still doing all the technical work, and I was the one building it. I had too many other things to do. So, I needed to find something that could be supported by other people, not just me. This was really getting something that we could run in a more enterprise-type fashion, as opposed to something that we built because we had to and there weren't any other options.

Today, we have two individuals responsible for storage. Not just this storage, but any other storage systems that exist. Previously, while the storage was a lot smaller, it still took about four of us working on it. By having a single platform, where we can run a variety of workloads on it, this enabled us to not have to continually grow our storage administration staff, even though our data footprint increased many fold over the years.

It was straightforward. There wasn't anything super complex about it. 

We just deployed a new cluster last year. It took around three to four months before it was really cranking in full production. Once they are running in full production, they are adding value.

Even to this day, if we still run into something that we are not sure about, we can call support or get local support, who generally get things addressed quickly and to our satisfaction.

Since I have to manage all the budgets, I always want things to be less expensive. However, I would say the pricing is fair. Their costs are in alignment with their competitors. It is a good value for the money.

Like anything else, it could always be less expensive. That would be great. At the same time, I would like to make sure that they keep innovating.

We went pretty much straight to the Isilon product. At the time, there were no other products available that did what that product did. They were kind of unique.

We keep going back to them even though there are other products now that report to have similar characteristics. We keep going back to them because it has been such a good experience. We have a high degree of confidence in Dell EMC being able to deliver a product that meets our needs. It is cost-effective and helps me sleep at night because a lot of the data is precious. Sometimes, you get samples that you would never be able to get again, where they are kind of a one-off thing. If you lose them, then they are gone forever. We have to bear that in mind. That is really why we continue to invest in this solution.

I would rate it as nine and a half out of 10. One of the main reasons that we have been successful as an institute is because we have back-end infrastructure, e.g., scale-out storage. This lets scientists focus on doing science, which is really important.

PowerScale (formerly Isilon) is effectively a giant NAS. We have two clusters, one for production workloads and one for Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity purposes. These clusters are installed in separate data-centers, physically located in two different places in the country. Both clusters were deployed at the same time when we first adopted the solution, and we have been growing them at an almost equal rate ever since.

Our production cluster is attached to our High-Performance Computing (HPC) environment, and this was the primary use case in the beginning: to provide scale-out storage for the Bioinformatics team, who do omics analysis on plant and seafood organisms that we do scientific research on. As time went on, we expanded our use of the platform for other user groups in the organization.

Eventually, PowerScale became the de-facto solution for anything related to unstructured data or file-based storage. Today, we also use the platform to host users’ home directories, large media files, and really any kind of data that doesn't really fit anywhere else, such as in a SharePoint library or a structured database. Nowadays, almost everyone in the organisation is a direct or indirect user of the platform. The bulk of the storage, however, continues to be consumed by our HPC environment, and Bioinformaticians continue to be our largest users. But we also have data scientists, system modellers, chemists, and machine-learning engineers, to name a few. 

Our company has multiple sites throughout the country and overseas, with the two primary data-centers supporting our Head Office and most of the smaller sites. Some of these sites, however, have a need for local storage, so our DR/BCP PowerScale cluster receives replicated data from both our production cluster as well as these other file servers.

Before PowerScale we used to have a different EMC product. I believe it was VNX 5000, which is primarily a block storage array with some NAS functionality. We did not have a HPC environment, however we did have a group of servers that performed approximately the same function.

Back in those days, raw storage had to be partitioned into multiple LUNs, and presented as several independent block devices because of size limitations of the storage array. When one of these devices started to run out of space, it was extremely cumbersome and time-consuming to shift data away from it, which slowed down our science. We wanted a solution that would free our users from the overhead of all of that data wrangling. Isilon was a good fit because it enabled us to effectively consolidate five separate data stores into a single filesystem, providing a single point of entry to our data for all of our users.

PowerScale helped us consolidate our former block storage into a full-fledged, scale-out, file storage platform with great success. We then decided to expand our use cases further, replacing some of the ancillary Windows File Servers that provided network file shares in our Head Office. We now have a single platform for all our unstructured data needs at our main locations.

We have not explored using PowerScale cloud-enabling features yet, but it is in our roadmap. The fact that those features exist out of the box, and can be enabled as required is another reason the platform is so versatile.

The switch to PowerScale was transformative. Before we implemented it, users had to constantly move their data between different storage platforms, which was time consuming and a high barrier of entry for getting the most of our centralized compute. Distributed, parallel processing is challenging enough, to add data wrangling on top of it created massive cognitive overload. Scientists are always under pressure to deliver on time, and deadlines are unforgiving. The easier we can make leveraging technology for them, the better.

We officially launched our current HPC environment shortly after we introduced Isilon, supporting approximately 20 users. Today, that number has grown 17500% to over 350 users across all of our sites. In an organization with nearly 1,000 employees, that's more than a third of our workforce! I credit PowerScale as one of the critical factors responsible for that growth. PowerScale simplified data management because it allows you to present the same data via multiple different protocols (eg: SMB, NFS, FTP, HTTP, etc), tremendously reducing our users’ cognitive overhead.

Before adopting PowerScale, we also faced capacity constraints in our environment. I had to constantly ask end-users to clean up and remove files they no longer needed. Our block data stores were constantly sitting at around 90% utilization. Expanding the storage array was not only expensive: every time that we wanted to provision additional space we had to decide if it was justified to re-architect the environment versus adding yet another data store. And going with the later option meant going back to our users again to free up space before more capacity could be added. All of this wasted massive amounts of time, that could have otherwise been spent running jobs and doing science.

Once we introduced scale-out storage, capacity upgrades and expansion became straightforward. The procurement process was simplified because now we can easily project when we will hit 90% storage utilization, and our users have visibility of how much storage they are individually consuming thanks to accounting-only quotas, which help keeping storage usage down. PowerScale provides a lot of metrics out of the box, which are easy to navigate and visualize using InsightIQ, and most recently DataIQ.

I can certainly recommend PowerScale for mission-critical workloads, it is a powerful but simple platform with little administration overhead. We use it in production for a variety of use cases, and it would be hard for our organization to operate effectively without it.

When we selected Isilon as our preferred storage provider, many considerations came into play, but the deciding factor was how little administration it requires. We no longer need a dedicated storage administrator looking after it. Instead, our Systems Engineers can handle the day-to-day operations without requiring in-depth expertise in storage management. The simplicity of the solution was a strong selling point when we first started looking into it. For example, when you have replicated clusters, you must ensure that you can actually failover between them in the event of a disaster. PowerScale makes setting up and checking the status of replication schedules extremely simple.

Over time, we started using more and more of its capabilities. I believe the most valuable feature we started using, beyond the initial scope for the solution, is the multi-protocol system that allows you to access the same set of files using different network protocols like NFS or SMB. PowerScale’s Unified Permission Model ensures that data security and access permissions are honoured regardless of whether the client is a Windows desktop or a Linux server. Our users can now access the data they need for their research, without having to deal with multiple credentials depending on the environment they are using, or having to rely on specific clients. The same file can be opened and edited from Windows Explorer or from the Linux command line, and we can guarantee that the ownership and permissions of that file will remain consistent. It reduces friction and cognitive overhead, which is what I value the most.

Data security and availability are also included in solution, out-of-the-box. Of course you still need to be aware of how to configure the different features to your use case, but from a data security and availability perspective, you can leverage replication schedules, snapshotting, increased redundancy at rest, and all of those features which we now consider a must-have. With PowerScale, I can have piece of mind that if a specific directory needs to be protected, it will be protected.

The only thing that I think PowerScale could do better is improving the HTTP data access protocol. At the present, you cannot protect access to data via HTTP or HTTPS the same way that you can secure data access through other protocols like NFS or SMB. You can either access a file because it can be access by anyone in the organization, or you cannot at all. There is no in-between. HTTP is not considered a first-class data access protocol, so the Unified Permission Model that would allow a user to authenticate before being able to access a private file, does not apply.

However, with the recent introduction of S3 starting from OneFS 9, I believe the necessary plumbing is already there for HTTPS to also be elevated to a first-class protocol in the future because both protocols sit behind a web server under the hood. It does not sound like it would be too complicated to implement, but it would be a valuable feature and it is currently missing.

We started exploring storage solutions for our environment back in 2012. We have been using PowerScale for nearly 10 years now.

PowerScale has never failed us. Since it was first installed, it has been running with almost 100% uptime since we started using it. We have only had to shut down the entire cluster once because we were moving data-centres. In earlier versions, sometimes you had to reboot the entire cluster for significant OS upgrades. Today, rolling upgrades are the norm, where only a single node is ever down at a time.

At the beginning, we procured four initial nodes, which amounted to about 400 TiB of usable space. We now have just shy of 2 PiB of total installed capacity at each cluster. Our storage usage has grown quite a bit, moving from terabytes to petabytes, but I have no doubt that we will be able to continue growing at the same rate or even more in the future. The original Isilon had already been designed to scale to multiple petabytes, PowerScale will only continue to push that further. We highly value being able to grow our capacity without having to be concerned with platform limits.

PowerScale now also offers more choice when it comes to mixing and matching different types of storage nodes within the same cluster. For example, you can get all-SSD or NVMe nodes alongside old-fashion SAS disks, that you might want to consider adding when performance is critical in your environment. In our case, the performance we get without these new nodes is sufficient for our needs. The best part is that should we ever need to provide a faster pool of disks, there is no administration overhead to do so: just add the new node types, set the tiering rules that you want, and let the system rebalance itself. No partitioning, no moving data around yourself. It is transparent to the end-users as well as the administrators. You can even tier data to a cloud pool for the archive if you want! This simplicity is, again, one of the main reasons we decided to stay on the platform.

I needed technical support on a few occasions, specifically while implementing multi-protocol access for Linux and Windows clients. There was an instance when my engagement with support had to run for longer than I expected, but that was because the solution I wanted to achieve was highly complex from a technical perspective. We had to escalate the issue a few times to the next tier of engineers until they came through with a solution. It was always an excellent customer service experience, and I can certainly recommend Dell EMC Support to anyone who asks.

That said, we only tend to contact Support when we are unable to resolve issues or find the answers with need in the product knowledge bases, or the community forums. The availability of product information online is both comprehensive and of excellent quality.

The initial setup was straightforward. Since it was a green-fields implementation, we did not run into any issues. EMC, who later merged with Dell to form Dell EMC, even let us evaluate the platform in our own data-centre, so by the time we decided to procure the solution, all we had to do was to revert to “factory settings”. The longest part of the process was migrating around 84 TiB of data from our old data stores, as it happens with any data migration exercises. But once the data had been relocated, it became a matter of simply pointing the servers to the new data store entry points. Users were happy to take it from there, and were certainly overjoyed at the additional space they had to work with.

It was a long time ago now so details are fuzzy, but we dealt with EMC directly, with the help of an integrator for some of the initial design and implementation. EMC was our primary point of contact for platform-specific support when we first started, and their guidance around the different features of the platform was invaluable.

Today, that same integrator continues to help us with ongoing procurement, simplifying decisions around which of the many available node types might be the best suited to our environment, or ensuring that we stay on top of our node refresh cycle as older ones reach end of life.

Price was also a significant factor in our decision to go with PowerScale. The team at EMC, now Dell EMC, came through with a highly competitive offer that tipped the scales towards their solution. There was only one other solution around the same price point, but it could not match PowerScale on features. That other solution is no longer on the market.

The licensing model is interesting, because it is essentially “pay to unlock”. Most of the available features are software-defined, so they are already available in OneFS, the underlying Operating System, waiting for you to activate them as needed. There are a few additional costs, however. NDMP backups require you to install fibre cards, which are sold separately. Then of course you have the cost of tape and off-site storage, but you would have those same costs with most other platforms. Luckily, we do not need to back-up the whole cluster because we can rely on cluster replication and snapshots (on both source and target clusters) to achieve our RPOs. But we do have a legal requirement to preserve some data for an extended period, so we use tape for that.

We evaluated three other competing solutions based on multiple criteria. Some of those solutions no longer exist, or have evolved into a different offering. We went through a rigorous evaluation process, which assessed the platforms’ scalability, ease of use or complexity to administer, performance, and of course TCO. Isilon was the brand name that blew all others out of the water. It was an easy decision for us to make based on the criteria we set.

I give Dell EMC PowerScale a high 9 out of 10. It is not quite a 10, mainly because we do not have a use for all the features it provides, which you need to be aware of from a security point of view (eg: to ensure that they do not introduce unexpected risk). The ecosystem has also grown to be somewhat more complex in terms of the many different types of nodes that you can have. This gives you a lot of flexibility, but it does go slightly against the idea of simplicity that was so attractive initially.

We use the solution to organize the data structure. Some of its applications are geared towards companies in the oil and gas sector. For instance, it supports SIP solutions that conduct scanning and comprehensive Seismographic analysis. Additionally, other customers include broadcast companies with vast historical assets. Essentially, they aim to manage their content libraries efficiently. It primarily focuses on data management and storage solutions.

PowerScale addresses the customer's need for a global rather than discrete file system. It resolves performance issues and offers comprehensive support. PowerScale needs more expansion regarding solutions such as HSM or integration with tape libraries.

Dell has pairing and utilizes optical services within the same infrastructure. This means utilizing services from the same infrastructure for internal file system needs and providing access to the public.

The solution should improve its pricing and features.

I have been using Dell PowerScale (Isilon) as a consultant and reseller for seven years.

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable and is suitable for enterprise customers.

Support is very good.

Positive

IBM is cheaper than Dell PowerScale.

The maintenance depends on the time you are willing to invest in learning about the platform. It varies for each individual, and if you have people eager to learn, it can make a significant difference.

IBM built its sources of disk management which control costs. They don't rely on purchasing from vendors. For example, Dell PowerScale doesn't manufacture the disks; instead, they source them from suppliers or engage in patching. They do not produce the disks themselves; they procure them.

IBM can utilize gateways that offer a similar file system to PowerScale. These gateways provide both block storage and file services. This is different from PowerScale because when purchasing PowerScale, you acquire building blocks including CPU and memory. This configuration lacks the flexibility to adapt to various infrastructures. While this setup can be configured, it may pose limitations.

You can customize security settings within the tool, including access and file-level permissions. This focuses on enabling 'write once' capabilities, making it challenging to alter data without appropriate authorization. It would be impossible to tamper with unless an individual gains access by obtaining administrator credentials.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution's scalability is very good.

The solution's rate structure or rate redundancy needs to be improved. If you have a lot of nodes, for example, 15 nodes, and when you say you lost one node on the paper, the performance is not affected. However, if you have so much file count and fifteen nodes, losing one node really affects the performance. One of our customers had this issue.

Also, when you lose a couple of drives, it's a different structure, then you can lose data. It is clearer on the NetApp side, and you can create a rate group and a pool. So you will have more redundancy on the drives. For example, in a rate set for around 100 drives, you can lose around 20 drives, which depends on the configuration.

In NetApp, we will not lose data, but if you lose 20 drives in EMC, you will also lose data. Small systems like Dell PowerScale (Isilon) work perfectly with five, six, or ten nodes. Based on my experience, if you have 15 nodes in Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and lose one node, it creates some problems.

I have been working with Dell PowerScale (Isilon) for more than ten years.

I rate Dell PowerScale (Isilon) a seven out of ten for stability. The solution's stability should be improved, especially for more than ten nodes.

If the customer doesn't need more performance, you should be able to adjust the solution to expand just the capacity and not the performance.

We recommend Dell PowerScale (Isilon) to customers who request low capacity but high performance. Each node in Dell PowerScale (Isilon) has limited capacity, and we need to add more nodes, but we can get more performance. Adding more controllers to NetApp to expand the system and scale up reduces its price and performance.

For example, if the customer needs 200 terabytes of capacity with high performance and high throughput, we use Dell PowerScale (Isilon). If they need performance and capacity, then NetApp's price and performance are really good compared to Dell PowerScale (Isilon).

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is easy to implement.

NetApp's implementation, configuration, and integrations are easier than Dell PowerScale (Isilon). For Dell PowerScale (Isilon), you need to use the command prompt for some configurations and integrations; you cannot configure everything on the user interface.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is an expensive solution.

Users who want performance and have a budget can prefer Dell PowerScale (Isilon).

Overall, I rate Dell PowerScale (Isilon) a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to store all our unstructured data.

The solution's most valuable features are scalability and flexibility. It allows us to scale storage capacity without downtime.

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) is a little bit pricey, and its pricing could be improved.

I have been using Dell PowerScale (Isilon) for two years.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

Around 30,000 users use the solution daily in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability ten out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution’s initial setup ten out of ten.

The solution's deployment process is pretty extensive. It has a dedicated back-end network and then connects to the data center network on the front end. The solution can be deployed in a few days. Dell services did the deployment for us.

The solution's licensing cost varies based on capacity and performance requirements.

I am using the latest version of the solution. We partner with many third-party software products that can be used for different types of data replication. I would have users analyze their data and put as much of it on Dell PowerScale (Isilon) as they can. The solution stores all the unstructured data related to all my projects. It's the core of our data center.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.