In terms of improvement regarding IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe, I can compare with other competitors, especially regarding solution architecture. Data resiliency can be a concern because IBM can reach up to only four controllers, while others like Dell EMC can support up to eight controllers with better resiliency without service staff. Additionally, the SBC one benchmark is a storage performance console that stresses different storage solutions like Dell EMC and NetApp. It generates metrics of IOPS and latency, showing that the competition can have two million IOPS, significantly outperforming IBM's capabilities. As for the capability of scaling, we can see the limitations in reaching such high-performance levels.
The solution's compression needs to be improved, as it's not the best. Furthermore, support from the partner could also be improved as it's been difficult to get answers and the support is not of high quality.
IT manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jan 25, 2024
It's a good system, but some vendors limit specific models from being upgraded to larger capacities. This forces us to migrate to a different model just for additional storage. So there are limitations in scaling the capacity within the same model. Therefore, integration with third-party vendors' products could be better. Another point is related to ransomware, which is a big issue. The storage system itself should have built-in capabilities for different ransomware attacks, not solely rely on backups as a last resort. But they shouldn't be the only line of defense. Ideally, the storage system, for example, the one hosting the server, should have built-in security features to prevent ransomware attacks in the first place.
I would like to see IBM products become more affordable because they can be quite expensive, which limits their accessibility to a broader customer base.
Pre-Sales Consultant - Infrastructure at InfoTech Group
Real User
May 16, 2023
There is a scope for improvement in the solution's software area. IBM is currently not offering volume-based encryption or compression, while other brands or IBM's competitors are doing it. Speaking about what I wish to see in the future releases of the solution, I would like to say that most of the time, we face the need for unified storage that others are offering, but IBM doesn't offer. The second feature I want to see is NVMe to NVMe storage extension.
There is room for improvement in terms of management. IBM can make management easier, as it doesn't seem to be as easy as Huawei. Moreover, the support could be better.
IBM FlashSystem 9100 is currently end of the market. IBM keeps innovating and FlahSystem 9500 which is the current high-end FlashSystem storage has lots of improvements when compared to the 9100.
Information Technology Senior Administrator at Genpa
Real User
Mar 27, 2023
The efficacy of the GUI in IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe could be enhanced, and it would be beneficial to include a feature that can prevent ransomware attacks. In a future release, the solution should provide a feature for accidental protection.
Microfinance at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jan 18, 2023
In the future, the limitation is upgrading the same storage by adding a shelf to the desk. There is a limitation in the backend connection between the storage and extended shelf. There is a limitation in the backend connection of the storage or expansion that could improve.
Team Lead IT Infrastructure & Datacenter at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Jul 19, 2022
We're not satisfied with the deduplication and compression for our volumes. When we enable those features, we assess issues like virtual machine performance which is quite a complex thing to do with FlashSystem. We'd like to have better technical support because they ask lots of questions when we could just have a remote session and resolve the issue. I'd like to see application level integration with Microsoft Hyper-V integration with the IBM Storages in the next upgrade.
Consulting Client Executive at Jeskell Systems, LLC
Real User
Feb 10, 2022
I'd like to see more ports, although we have found ways of working around it. It's a bit limited on ports for most users. We use it with fiber channel and VME connections. The ports are fiber channel or iSCSI. Everybody uses it, which means running storage over IP connections. The advantage is you can run over an internet protocol (IP) connection. I'd like to be able to connect to tape drives behind the storage device to back up the tape if need be. We have all of our storage running in all-flash, and we make a copy on tape. Currently, when we want to hook up tape drives, we have to add some extra equipment, which is a little bit complex. We want IBM to add a feature where we could install a tape into the storage so that we can connect it through a single pane of glass. We'd like to have a feature in the IBM flash storage system so that we can connect backup tape drives through the IBM storage system and we can manage the backup tape from the storage system. We have got all this data in our storage system, but there are a lot of bad people in the world, and they go around corrupting things with ransomware acts and other things. So, we make a full copy of the data on the tape. The tape then goes and sits in a secure storage facility. If something goes horribly wrong, we bring that tape out, we erase all the bad data that was corrupted, and then we lay down our clean data from the tape, and we're back in business. For example, the City of Baltimore was held on ransom for months a couple of years ago. They didn't have that facility. They didn't know how to do that, whereas we do our best practice and we back up all our data to tape, and then that tape gets stored somewhere else so that the bad people can't come in and do ransomware on us.
Information Technology Senior Administrator at Genpa
Real User
Nov 12, 2020
The prices are high. Except for this, there is nothing I don't like in FlashSystem. Before IBM Flash, I was using NetApp 2020. You can't easily do what you want to do with NetApp. It takes more time to take snapshots, it takes more time to do deduplication. FlashSystem is better than the old system. I recommend it to my friends who ask what to pick.
Other vendors have included a block and file system. IBM doesn't include a file system. And yet, it's very necessary for all organizations' networks to have file systems. We have other systems for the file system, however, ideally, we would like to have one system with all the features we need instead of having different solutions for certain aspects.
IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe is recognized for its speed, reliability, and performance, offering a high-speed enterprise storage solution. It supports various high-demand applications and environments with superior data processing and ease of use.IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe is known for its exceptional high-performance storage facilitated by FlashCore modules and unique architecture. It efficiently handles high I/O operations and supports hybrid cloud environments, including integration with AWS,...
In terms of improvement regarding IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe, I can compare with other competitors, especially regarding solution architecture. Data resiliency can be a concern because IBM can reach up to only four controllers, while others like Dell EMC can support up to eight controllers with better resiliency without service staff. Additionally, the SBC one benchmark is a storage performance console that stresses different storage solutions like Dell EMC and NetApp. It generates metrics of IOPS and latency, showing that the competition can have two million IOPS, significantly outperforming IBM's capabilities. As for the capability of scaling, we can see the limitations in reaching such high-performance levels.
The solution's compression needs to be improved, as it's not the best. Furthermore, support from the partner could also be improved as it's been difficult to get answers and the support is not of high quality.
In the FlashSystem 5200, there were only four ports of 32 fiber channels for the architecture. This has been resolved in the new generation.
It's a good system, but some vendors limit specific models from being upgraded to larger capacities. This forces us to migrate to a different model just for additional storage. So there are limitations in scaling the capacity within the same model. Therefore, integration with third-party vendors' products could be better. Another point is related to ransomware, which is a big issue. The storage system itself should have built-in capabilities for different ransomware attacks, not solely rely on backups as a last resort. But they shouldn't be the only line of defense. Ideally, the storage system, for example, the one hosting the server, should have built-in security features to prevent ransomware attacks in the first place.
The tool's architecture is complex. It also needs to add data utilization reports.
I would like to see IBM products become more affordable because they can be quite expensive, which limits their accessibility to a broader customer base.
The solution's compression or deduplication features over volume need improvement. Also, the scalability of its box setup could be better.
There is a scope for improvement in the solution's software area. IBM is currently not offering volume-based encryption or compression, while other brands or IBM's competitors are doing it. Speaking about what I wish to see in the future releases of the solution, I would like to say that most of the time, we face the need for unified storage that others are offering, but IBM doesn't offer. The second feature I want to see is NVMe to NVMe storage extension.
There is room for improvement in terms of management. IBM can make management easier, as it doesn't seem to be as easy as Huawei. Moreover, the support could be better.
IBM FlashSystem 9100 is currently end of the market. IBM keeps innovating and FlahSystem 9500 which is the current high-end FlashSystem storage has lots of improvements when compared to the 9100.
The efficacy of the GUI in IBM FlashSystem 9100 NVMe could be enhanced, and it would be beneficial to include a feature that can prevent ransomware attacks. In a future release, the solution should provide a feature for accidental protection.
The IP server could be even more available. The ZIO interface could be improved.
In the future, the limitation is upgrading the same storage by adding a shelf to the desk. There is a limitation in the backend connection between the storage and extended shelf. There is a limitation in the backend connection of the storage or expansion that could improve.
We're not satisfied with the deduplication and compression for our volumes. When we enable those features, we assess issues like virtual machine performance which is quite a complex thing to do with FlashSystem. We'd like to have better technical support because they ask lots of questions when we could just have a remote session and resolve the issue. I'd like to see application level integration with Microsoft Hyper-V integration with the IBM Storages in the next upgrade.
I'd like to see more ports, although we have found ways of working around it. It's a bit limited on ports for most users. We use it with fiber channel and VME connections. The ports are fiber channel or iSCSI. Everybody uses it, which means running storage over IP connections. The advantage is you can run over an internet protocol (IP) connection. I'd like to be able to connect to tape drives behind the storage device to back up the tape if need be. We have all of our storage running in all-flash, and we make a copy on tape. Currently, when we want to hook up tape drives, we have to add some extra equipment, which is a little bit complex. We want IBM to add a feature where we could install a tape into the storage so that we can connect it through a single pane of glass. We'd like to have a feature in the IBM flash storage system so that we can connect backup tape drives through the IBM storage system and we can manage the backup tape from the storage system. We have got all this data in our storage system, but there are a lot of bad people in the world, and they go around corrupting things with ransomware acts and other things. So, we make a full copy of the data on the tape. The tape then goes and sits in a secure storage facility. If something goes horribly wrong, we bring that tape out, we erase all the bad data that was corrupted, and then we lay down our clean data from the tape, and we're back in business. For example, the City of Baltimore was held on ransom for months a couple of years ago. They didn't have that facility. They didn't know how to do that, whereas we do our best practice and we back up all our data to tape, and then that tape gets stored somewhere else so that the bad people can't come in and do ransomware on us.
The prices are high. Except for this, there is nothing I don't like in FlashSystem. Before IBM Flash, I was using NetApp 2020. You can't easily do what you want to do with NetApp. It takes more time to take snapshots, it takes more time to do deduplication. FlashSystem is better than the old system. I recommend it to my friends who ask what to pick.
Other vendors have included a block and file system. IBM doesn't include a file system. And yet, it's very necessary for all organizations' networks to have file systems. We have other systems for the file system, however, ideally, we would like to have one system with all the features we need instead of having different solutions for certain aspects.
I would like to have replication functionality built directly in the product, rather than having to use a separate device for this.
The pricing should be more competitive.