Cloud Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Sep 19, 2023
The Unity 300/400/600 generation (1st) is really old stuff, lateron came the 2nd generation of 350f,450f,650f (hybrid or full flash) and still later cam in the 3rd generation 380f, 480f,680f & 880f
As usual the CPO/Cores and cache increased everytime, the code is pretty much the same.
The x00 generation is already obsolete and by next year the next generation x50 is going to be obsolete from a service point of view.
Here is how it goes. Dell Puts forward to replace
* the Unity XT 380F by an Powerstore 500T
* the Unity XT 480F by a Powerstore 1200
* The Unity XT 680f by a Powerstore 3200
* The unity XT 800f by a Powerstore 5200
There is even a Powerstore 9200
Currently you have the Unity x80 model, which has more CPU punch and therefore maxes out less fast on CPU utilisation. What this means is that you can add more shelves and disks and workloads to it before you hit the roof.
The powerstore 1200 is an nvme/FC but NAS storage as well, is 60% more powerfull (compared to FC/SCSI-SSD on Unity) in our case, and has higher datareduction rates. If the unity reaches out to a datareduction rate of 1.5 or 2, the Powerstore T1200 is capable of 3 to 3.5 datareduction. the Powerstore offloads its compression/deduplication efforts from the Processor to a hardware component in charge of it (like the PowerMAX and likely the same device and Compression Algorithm). The price of the device is pretty much dependant on the price of its media, and therefore the Powerstore T1200 is the absolute winner as you can double the data saved to it compared to the Unity alternative. There is one caveat, when you initialise your Powerstore you either initialise it as a NAS or Block Device appliance. Whereas on the Unity part, you could use both options at the same time. .
Another aspect is that the Powerstore can be used to build a cluster of arrays compared to the sync/asynch replication only feature of the Unity series, rendering the mirrored volumes unuseable unless one fails over to it, like in a disaster recovery scenario.To you can , have true Active/Active volumes and go next level with MetroCluster volumes and go beyond VMware Site Reovery Manager to organise your failover/test failovers and protection groups. You can actually leave aside VMware Site Recovery manager and do all from within Powerstore and use its Recoverpoint for VMs add on (similar to Veaam replication but a with an storage appliance in support.
The Powerstore also allows true A/A volumes on both sides . What this means is that one can build stretched vSphere clusters and the loss of your array in one site will still allow writing to the alternate protected disk, transparently ! You can have site local writes to your volumes and remain in sync without a need to cross site write.
There is not much of a reason to settle for the Unity anymore, unless you would go for a mixed chassis providing both Block Storage & FileSharing. Unity allocates RAM ressources dynamically when used for FC/SCSI AND NAS , whereas the Powerstore is initialized as either a NAS or BlockStorage at installation time. Thats a hard call. So I'd favour the Unity only if you use it for low/moderate NAS needs in combination with FC/SCSI or block data and you don't have the budget nor the size to use a NAS optimised array on top.
Enterprise post-sales manager. at Smart technologies (BD) Ltd
Real User
Sep 20, 2023
Hello Yasin,
The best solution depends upon your host environment. In general, PowerStore is more powerful than Unity but Unity is also a very good Storage solution.
Dell Unity XT and Dell PowerStore compete in the enterprise storage solutions category. Dell PowerStore appears to have the upper hand due to its advanced features and innovation.
Features: Dell Unity XT is noted for its robust performance, ease of management, and seamless integration. Dell PowerStore is recognized for its scalability, efficient data reduction capabilities, and advanced automation features. Users find PowerStore's innovative features provide more long-term value.
Room for...
The Unity 300/400/600 generation (1st) is really old stuff, lateron came the 2nd generation of 350f,450f,650f (hybrid or full flash) and still later cam in the 3rd generation 380f, 480f,680f & 880f
As usual the CPO/Cores and cache increased everytime, the code is pretty much the same.
The x00 generation is already obsolete and by next year the next generation x50 is going to be obsolete from a service point of view.
Here is how it goes. Dell Puts forward to replace
* the Unity XT 380F by an Powerstore 500T
* the Unity XT 480F by a Powerstore 1200
* The Unity XT 680f by a Powerstore 3200
* The unity XT 800f by a Powerstore 5200
There is even a Powerstore 9200
Currently you have the Unity x80 model, which has more CPU punch and therefore maxes out less fast on CPU utilisation. What this means is that you can add more shelves and disks and workloads to it before you hit the roof.
The powerstore 1200 is an nvme/FC but NAS storage as well, is 60% more powerfull (compared to FC/SCSI-SSD on Unity) in our case, and has higher datareduction rates. If the unity reaches out to a datareduction rate of 1.5 or 2, the Powerstore T1200 is capable of 3 to 3.5 datareduction. the Powerstore offloads its compression/deduplication efforts from the Processor to a hardware component in charge of it (like the PowerMAX and likely the same device and Compression Algorithm). The price of the device is pretty much dependant on the price of its media, and therefore the Powerstore T1200 is the absolute winner as you can double the data saved to it compared to the Unity alternative. There is one caveat, when you initialise your Powerstore you either initialise it as a NAS or Block Device appliance. Whereas on the Unity part, you could use both options at the same time.
.
Another aspect is that the Powerstore can be used to build a cluster of arrays compared to the sync/asynch replication only feature of the Unity series, rendering the mirrored volumes unuseable unless one fails over to it, like in a disaster recovery scenario.To you can , have true Active/Active volumes and go next level with MetroCluster volumes and go beyond VMware Site Reovery Manager to organise your failover/test failovers and protection groups. You can actually leave aside VMware Site Recovery manager and do all from within Powerstore and use its Recoverpoint for VMs add on (similar to Veaam replication but a with an storage appliance in support.
The Powerstore also allows true A/A volumes on both sides . What this means is that one can build stretched vSphere clusters and the loss of your array in one site will still allow writing to the alternate protected disk, transparently ! You can have site local writes to your volumes and remain in sync without a need to cross site write.
There is not much of a reason to settle for the Unity anymore, unless you would go for a mixed chassis providing both Block Storage & FileSharing. Unity allocates RAM ressources dynamically when used for FC/SCSI AND NAS , whereas the Powerstore is initialized as either a NAS or BlockStorage at installation time. Thats a hard call. So I'd favour the Unity only if you use it for low/moderate NAS needs in combination with FC/SCSI or block data and you don't have the budget nor the size to use a NAS optimised array on top.
Hello Yasin,
The best solution depends upon your host environment. In general, PowerStore is more powerful than Unity but Unity is also a very good Storage solution.