HPE 3PAR StoreServ Reviews

Disk-utilization tier-ing (3PAR Adaptive Optimization)

The organization was able to consolidate disparate storage environments into a single chassis with multiple connection types, utilize the different disk tiers across all software/hardware connected platforms, all the time providing the fastest disk to the most utilized portions of storage as determined by the controllers.

While there is direct module integration with different Hyper Visors on the market, the actual software of those integrations do leave some feature integration off requiring both management interfaces. The greater this integration becomes the easier to manage the environment it will be.

I used it for three years.

All the issues we encountered were due to human error.

All the issues we encountered were due to human error.

All the issues we encountered were due to human error.

HP technical support for 3PAR is excellent once you have navigated the call tree.

I utilized HP Lefthand devices and EVA SAN’s (Models 5000 and 4400)

The initial setup was complex in that requirements were not communicated well through the VAR and some parts needed to be sent back (PDU’s were of the wrong type) and the VAR assumed a Virtual Storage manager would be used, but a physical manager was both requested and required, which created an installation delay while the correct equipment was shipped.

It was implemented through a vendor team, originally out-sourced by HP, then followed up by HP in-house technicians.

The implementation did not have an ROI to calculate as the products being migrated off of were end of life.

• Dell Compellant
• EMC VMX

• Separated multilayer and specific SAN Storage operating system (Informos)
• ASIC based operation
• High end feature in mid-range scale
• Wizard based configuration console
• Scale in scale out forward
• Storage virtualization technology like chunklet

Increase provisioning time and reduce configuration complexity based on chunklet technology. It supports advanced virtualization services on storage operations and virtual computing infrastructure.

Common data center standards for temperature, humidity, firefighting etc.

I've used the Inserv 7000 series for two years.

Many points were needed for the initial system on first time setup. We had some non-predictable random issues during initialization like non-probable Inserv serial numbers etc. Time was needed for the chunklets restructure to take effect.

Very dependable system structure to each node on healthy clusters.

Based on our experience and the documentation it looks easy.

9 out of 10

9 out of 10

We used to use the EVA 8000 series but they have just two nodes in that series and it is unsupported for active clustering, HA for controllers and nodes. 3PAR is also more cost effective on hardware, and has less performance issues and more scalability.

Complex in initial pre-requirement and finding the serial numbers and the necessary information for setting up the system.

I did the implementation myself.

When comparing the cost with the features and performance, this solution is a good choice.

Yes, we compared this series to the EMC VNX series based on feature/performance/technology and cost.

It has a large basket of advanced features to integrate storage system into the service layer, good performance on provisioning and SAN service.

We use the solution for multiple business applications, with SharePoint, our internal management system and Exchange 2016. We are customers of HPE 3PAR and I'm a system engineer.

I think the main thing of value to me is the intelligence around the solution and how data is taken care of on the storage side of things, with your LANs and your virtual volumes and how it sort of manages everything else.

The scalability could be improved plus management. Currently, you can only identify what's connected to it through the system names and the like and it would be helpful to have an overview of everything that comes to it. It's easy to upsize but you can't downsize.

We've been using this solution for about seven years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The product used to be very scalable but its end of life will be in about a year so there's no point to upgrade or enhance it. 

The support is quite good and we'll continue to use this product.

The initial setup is complex, it requires you to do your volumes, fibre channel volume from the switch and the same connection from the storage. You also need to make sure you've created warning profiles. I don't recall how long the primary setup took, but the secondary one took us four to six hours to get it going. We used a consultant and we have 1,200 users.
We have about six people involved in maintenance, they are admins.

The product is at end of life so although we'll continue to use it, I wouldn't recommend it. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I want to build a MetroCluester in VMware.

The speed is very good.

This solution only provides active-passive replication, as opposed to active-active. Competing products also provide active-active replication.

Adding support for Virtual Storage Platform (VSP) would be an improvement.

I have been using HPE 3PAR StoreServ for more than seven years.

3PAR is a stable product.

This solution is easy to scale. It is done online.

I have been in contact with technical support and I would rate them an eight or nine out of ten. They are very good.

I am also using HPE Nimble.

I also have experience with HPE Primera, which is a better product. It's a merge of 3PAR and Nimble and it's a more stable storage solution.

If I were comparing a group of products then I would rate StorageWorks MSA a five, Nimble a seven, 3PAR an eight, Primera a nine, and StorageWorks XP a ten.

The initial setup is very simple.

The installation and configuration are quick. You can complete them in one or two hours, which is fast.

The deployment and maintenance are done in-house.

We are always using the latest version because I upgrade every year.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for virtualization, vCenter, and infrastructure. 

We have simple needs. We are a very small shop and are not a technology company, but we do have mobile apps and websites that we provide to our customers.

I am new with the company. I have only been there about a year now, but I understand that they have had this system for at least three to five years.

The performance has been fantastic. It has not had many issues whatsoever, and what issues they do have, the support picks up on it quickly. They send us tickets saying that they are doing work without us even having to engage them. So, that is very nice.

All-in-one containment: I do not have to worry about cross systems talking to each other or multiple systems trying to interact with each other. Our entire vCenter infrastructure is one large stack, which is nice.

I would like to see a little better integration with OneView and provisioning ESX Hosts, but other than that it meets our needs.

Possibly because of the version that we are running, but we do not have not enough features.

I am very impressed with the stability. We have had a stable environment for at least the year that I have been at the organization.

You can't beat its scalability. Just add more storage space when you need it, which is very simple.

Technical support is very responsive. Most of the time, they are engaged before we even know about problems that are there. However, for things like disk outages, you have to arrange for somebody to come out and do something. 

They have been very helpful, and worked within our schedules and our maintenance windows. We are very pleased with them.

We absolutely see the ROI. Sometimes when you purchase large pieces of equipment like this, uptiming is a huge thing that we need. Also, the stability of the system along with the fact that we have had to put very little time into the product once it was up, established, and running has reduced our costs. It allows us to focus on other important projects, rather than having to constantly restructure the infrastructure.

Support is great. The hardware is great. Unfortunately, we are running on an older version.

I would recommend taking a look at it. I have been looking at the newer options and technology. Not much has changed with it, so the expectations are still there that it would be a solid choice for somebody else.

It is status quo from what we came from. We came from ViON and Hitachi. Part of that is our own problem. It is not as much HPE, as to how we are using it. We lifted and shifted, identically from one system to another.

It is flexible. We receive a lot of flexibility. We do at capacity on demand (COD), so we do not buy it upfront. They have a convenient capacity model that works well for us. HPE are a sub to the ones we buy it from, but they are the best sub that you could ask for. Whenever we have a problem, they come right onsite.

I would like to see more openness with other platforms. InfoSight synergy as a whole is great, if I own all HPE products. 

It is whoever gets me the best price and value. They win the contract. I need that flexibility to work with, for example, if Dell were to win my server contract or ViON were to run the storage, and I still had HPE servers. I need flexibility for interoperability across multiple platforms, not just HPE.

We had major issues in years one and two. 

Now, it is stable. In the beginning, we had some stability and reliability issues. Over the last three years, it has been very stable and reliable.

It is definitely scalable. We do not have any issues.

The tech support is great. If we have a problem, we literally will have boots on the ground with senior sales people, as well as the people to fix the problem, to help make sure we are taken care of.

It was complex for us, but we were literally migrating nine data centers across the globe, from product A to product B. We got in our way more than anyone else did. I can't judge how the product would be in a typical environment, since we are talking about 75 petabytes over nine data centers. It was a big project. 

The product is straightforward enough. If we were to do it as a new implementation, it would not be an issue.

We are happy with it. However, there is always room for improvement.

Our primary use case is SAN for VMware hosts for hosted VMs for a K-12 education environment. Also, some space that we provisioned for security camera storage and backup targets.

We upgraded from HPE EVA and it was much easier to manage and provision LUNs, when necessary. Our EVA was maxed and was end of life. 

The 3PAR tool is cheaper to maintain with more storage available. 

The optimization features move chunklets or hot spots to faster drives. This way data which was getting hit most frequently was always on drives that could best handle the data, whether it was SQL data on SSD or rarely accessed file shares on the 7200 RPM drives.

The management interface is not intuitive. It is much better than EVA, but took some time to learn.