IBM FlashSystem Reviews

We are using the IBM FlashSystem 900 in a tiered storage environment virtualized behind the IBM SAN Volume Controller in a stretched-cluster topology.

The FlashSystem 900 consistently delivers performance below 1ms for read/write. This performance is essential for an effective SVC stretch-cluster configuration across two datacenters, and presenting active-active storage to the customer.

The performance monitoring feature is useful as it can report in 15 minute intervals by hour, day, week, month, or by a custom date range. Version 1.5.0.0 also has a useful feature which allows for IBM to provide remote support directly into the FlashSystem 900.

Include an option to upload the support package to the IBM ECuRep when opening an IBM PMR.

The initial customer technical support was efficient and effective.

No previous solution was used.

The initial setup is very similar to setting up the IBM family of enterprise storage products (V7000, V9000, SVC, etc.).

We implemented with a business partner and IBM.

I think the v7000 is versatile, reliable, and gives really good performance in the configuration you choose. The V7000 can be configured in different ways. It has proved to me that it is reliable, that the disks do not constantly break down, and that any administration work is simple. It also has a very complete assistant that helps you to solve the problems that arise.

This product has improved the speed of disk access where I have mounted, but I do not think that is its best feature since others give you the same performance. As I said for me what recommends this product is its reliability and the peace of mind it brings.

Of course the cost, it's expensive compared to other solutions.

I've been using for more than five years.

No problem, in fact it is a characteristic that I like.

No problem, there are very scalable models, everything depends on planning and the requirements.

The technical support in general of IBM, in my personal opinion, could be much better. The truth is that I have never had any problem with them at a hardware level, the service is agile. Things get a bit complicated if the issue is not solved with a replacement part. I would give technical support a seven out of 10.

I have used many solutions, having mounted many projects with storage (NetApp, HPE, Clarion, etc.) but if I had to choose one based on value for money, I think I would stick with V7000.

The initial configuration is simple, but critical because at this point you can make it not work or even damage it completely. I think configuration should be done by a specialist. A storage specialist who had never set up a V7000 would not have problems.

As I have already noted, everything depends on how you want it set up. I think there are others in the market that are equal in cost but much worse.

If you are going to go with a V7000, you will not regret it. Be sure to clarify what you need, and it will give you the expected results.

The easy GUI is the most valuable feature.

As I said When you Sync V7000 to Another V7000 that are located in my case more than 10km and with DWDM as dark fiber , first you need license for long distance from brocade.
Than you can change the buffer credit on the SAN switch to at least 49 . the point is that you need to test the parameter to get the best value .
This depend on the line you have and also check if there is any limitation from your DWDM Provider.

The problem is that if the buffer is not configured correctly this increase the latency because of this delay and the retransmit .

I have been using it for four years.

Remote copy performance impacts latency on the local storage: Must be configured with the correct buffer credit.

Customer service is very good.

Technical support is very good.

We previously used a different solution. We switched because Storwize v7000 is easy to manage.

A vendor team implemented it.

We do replication and other things. For us, compression, deduplication, and the space saving features are important to us. The price to value ratio, for us, was good.

We are using replication for our backup solutions and it costs us less compared to other solutions. For space saving features, it definitely saves us in a virtual environment in terms of space and money.

There is a limit on the flash memory for fresh copy, i.e., a memory limit. So there are limits within the software, for buffering and then caching. We want to see those items increased.

There are a lot of bugs and they are still adding features in the product. The system has matured from 6.X to 7.X. It has improved a lot, but it still has room for more improvement.

This is not an enterprise solution, and our team doesn't sell that. That's how it is. So we shouldn't expect an enterprise level solution. Whatever is marketable for the segment serves a purpose.

You can scale out as much as you want. We use up to four in a cluster, four to six nodes, so it's working fine for us.

Other than bug fixes, the technical support is really good. If you actually hit a bug in your environment, it's definitely going to take time. It has to be escalated all the way to the third level and then to the engineers. It's a little bit challenging over there. But overall, it's okay.

We were using SVC and DS83. We are actually using that app, but for us, IBM Storwize V7000 was more cost effective in our environment. That's why we chose that specific product.

The setup is straightforward if you want to do a basic setup. But if you want to do customization specific to your environment, then you need to be more intimately involved with it.

We are not, at this point, considering other vendors. These days, it's specifically cost which is more important when selecting a vendor. We are not part of a financial environment or something like that where we would have a lot of penalties. So for us, as long as it is stable enough, we are okay. So for us, it is stability and then cost.

If they are cost conscious and have a release table solution, this is probably the best solution available.

It has helped us to achieve a good response time for users.

The latency and speed of the array and also its ease of management were beneficial features.

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.

The several major crashes resulted in the entire weekends being lost in rebuilding the array and then for restoring the data. This was caused each time by a memory card failure and the array's inability to use a spare card. The array level RAID does not seem available.

It was great with TMS, however it has been terrible ever since IBM took over.

On one occasion our support renewal had not been processed, which we found out when we tried to get support during an array failure.

Previously, it was a great experience with RamSan-400.

The setup is very easy.

We implemented it in-house. It is very straightforward.

Since the takeover by IBM, the prices are much higher.

For resilience, you need to buy two of these devices per site as RAID only applies within in each memory card, i.e., the whole array is not resilient if a card fails. Failover would only be possible for a standby device.

I am an IBM reseller and I sell this solution to our clients. I have a lot of knowledge of this solution.

Our clients use this solution for database performance.

The most valuable feature is reliability.

Cloud file sharing is an area that needs improvement.

I have been selling this solution since it was released.

We sell the whole model, the entire line.

IBM FlashSytem is very stable.

This solution is very scalable. We have no issues with the scalability of the IBM FlashSystem.

Technical support is complicated.

The technical support can be improved. it should be more automated.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is well documented.

You purchase it as a bundle and the price is comparable.

I would rate IBM FlashSystem a nine out of ten.

Virtualization of external storage, while adding cache and speed to the external storage. You don't have to completely take out the datacenter of your old storage. Just add it to the Storwize, continue using it, but with added performance/speed.

It has saved money for our clients by not replacing all of their current storages (with new storages).

• The IP replication
• Events/log analysis tools

I've never used it myself for long periods of time, since as a system integrator and partner, I have only configured these systems for the end user. However, our clients have been using them since 2011, both Gen 1 and 2.

No.

No.

Since our company staff and I are an authorised IBM service partner with certifications in servicing Storwize V7000, all the technical support towards our clients have been done by ourselves. Only when some part fails have claimed it from IBM, and that went fast.

Yes, IBM DS5300. We switched because of the external storage virtualization.

It is pretty straightforward with a nice GUI. One has to know the basic concepts and terminology.

No special advice about pricing. Regarding licensing make sure you add at least three years software maintenance from IBM at the beginning, because you will not be able to download firmware updates or any fixes/patches without this. Even if you have hardware maintenance, they will not allow a download without this SW maintenance contract.

Yes, IBM SVC, which has essentially the same software, but it has no place for disk drives. Therefore, you must attach some storage to it.

Get the control box first, without any expansion boxes, and make sure you add at least three SSD drives, because this system has an auto tiering option. Thus, your frequently used data will be automatically placed on SSDs and be accessed faster by hosts. Data for shared folders, which is not so important, you can keep on older storages virtualized by the V7000, or put on bigger, cheaper, and slower disks.

We used to provision storage from different devices. This requires a lot of manual effort to synchronize all hosts with each storage unit in an environment. IBM SAN Volume Controller helps manage all storage units from a single interface; while IBM FlashSystem provides high performance for our Tier 1 applications.

IBM FlashSystem has an easy to use GUI, similar to the IBM Storewize family, which make it one of the best flash storage systems in the market.

We use the IBM SAN Volume Controller to provide a single management interface for virtualized storage. It is easy to manage many storage devices from a single controller.

The two products should be unified and have a service processor to restart devices remotely. For example, NetApp has devices which include a service processor in nodes, which could be used to restart the nodes remotely. IBM should implement something like this.

Both products are basically for block-level access. There should be a series that also has a file level and block-level access together, which would make it unified.

The stability of the system is fine.

We did not have any problems with scalability.

We receive excellent technical support.

I currently use both NetApp and IBM. NetApp storage is cost efficient, but IBM is way ahead of NetApp in terms of block-level access.

The initial setup was easy.

Pricing can be considered as per market competition. As I am seeing less projects using IBM storage these days, the only reason seems to be the cost of support.

We had a contract with IBM, and now we are also using NetApp storage.

Go ahead and implement it. IBM storage provides you everything that you’ll need for a block-level architecture, as they have many different products which provides you with a variety of options to meet your needs.