Portworx Enterprise Reviews

In the case of Portworx Enterprise, we have been developing our first couple of projects, and I find it to be a strong option on the market. We have known Kubernetes for a long time and have been working with those kinds of environments for modern applications. The satisfaction is quite high. The features we are finding have no doubt delivered what was promised. I can only compare it with Trident from NetApp, so I do not have all the information to tell you this is the best solution, but we are very satisfied with Portworx Enterprise.

The most valuable features I have found in Portworx Enterprise include security features, Autopilot, and all the features regarding backup. Regarding backup and disaster recovery, the best part is that customers without a backup feature were finding considerable troubles making a backup they could rely on. For Kubernetes, this is very challenging.

Portworx Enterprise's multi-cluster storage supports our customers by allowing them to manage complex data environments efficiently. We are offering two kinds of environments: one for customers working with modern data and modern application development, and they are finding that it is easier for them to migrate workloads from on-premises to cloud or the other way around. We find that it is easier to develop and have those features to help them focus on functionality rather than architecture. On the other hand, for the more traditional sysadmins, whenever development teams are asking for features, what they are finding is that Portworx Enterprise helps them provide those features and also find solutions regarding Portworx Enterprise and other solutions for containers, allowing them to maintain enterprise features while eliminating Broadcom. There are these two different approaches with the same solution.

Portworx Enterprise is a leader in the market according to consultancies and consultant agencies, but one area for improvement could be the visibility about how applications are working on a low level, especially regarding how they are messaging between all those microservices. Cybersecurity in those kinds of environments needs to be rock solid and really secured. With all those AIs working now to infect and attack environments, this is something that Portworx Enterprise should put more focus on even more than they do now. There are security solutions already implemented in Portworx Enterprise, including anti-ransomware, but as the environment grows, the possibilities of having cybersecurity issues increase, so they should focus even more on that part.

I have been dealing with Portworx Enterprise for a year and a half.

I would rate technical support for Portworx Enterprise at nine and a half.

Regarding pricing, I found that a couple of customers did not purchase the project because, at least in Spain, there are customers finding the pricing a little too high for the service they receive. They kept working with fully manual solutions because the pricing did not justify an automated solution. The cost of operations and return on investment made it still cheaper to do it manually, depending on the size of the customer.

Regarding granular data management policies, my profile is not just sales but also technical, and I did not touch all the features. Regarding data policies, we did not find any trouble working with the pods and with the data within the pods or in the clusters. I assess the effectiveness of Portworx Enterprise in disaster recovery scenarios as very effective because one of those architectural decisions made was that the backplane is capable of being shared with various environments. You do not have to work with just pure storage, but you can work with Huawei or NetApp or in the cloud. This makes disaster recovery really covered because the solution is not dependent on the hardware you have, and you do not have to have the same hardware in the other endpoint. It is a very strong and resilient solution. We have made some testing, and it is capable of keeping business continuity without any problems in a couple of different scenarios.

Portworx Enterprise's ability to integrate with existing infrastructure has benefited our customers' technology stack by allowing them to develop modern applications without having to think about what kind of storage they have. They can focus on developing the correct features instead of making the software based on the architecture of their storage. The more they can work with any kind of storage, the better. Many people starting with Kubernetes have limitations depending on their hardware, which can be a real challenge. Therefore, being able to work with any kind of storage is really different. What I have found in other solutions is that you have to work with just one solution, and if you want to work with two, you will have to perform considerable work to migrate the solutions, and it should not be similar to a disaster recovery scenario. If you are not able to work with a couple of solutions, it means that the software depends on the hardware, which is an unfavorable situation.

I would rate Portworx Enterprise overall between nine and ten because it really works well. For example, we made a deployment that was working almost seamlessly from the beginning, and we were able to work with the customer for a granular integration without any issues in our first deployment. Kubernetes can be difficult and complex, but in my perspective, it was much easier than our first Kubernetes deployments. I assess the overall review rating for Portworx Enterprise at nine out of ten.

My organization has been using Portworx Enterprise for the last two years across a couple of projects. We deploy Portworx Enterprise as a cloud-native storage solution on top of Kubernetes. We have several workloads running on Kubernetes, including application services that are both stateless and stateful. For those applications, we provide storage from Portworx Enterprise. We have Portworx Enterprise deployed in one of our projects on a Kubernetes cluster running on-premises. We consume Portworx Enterprise for our applications using persistent volumes and persistent volume claims. It provides high availability with good backup and disaster recovery solutions, and it is designed for a cloud-native environment, which outlines how we are using it.

One specific example of Portworx Enterprise making a difference in my organization is with an application that stores configuration and data. To store that data, we need persistent volumes for our applications, which the application team requested, and we provide persistent volumes coming from Portworx Enterprise. We also provide storage from Portworx Enterprise for our monitoring solution, logging stack, and internal container registry hosted on our on-premises Kubernetes environment.

Portworx Enterprise offers several best features. First, it is cloud-native and requires minimal effort to integrate into our Kubernetes cluster, which includes dynamic provisioning features. There is no need to manage disks manually, and storage can be obtained dynamically using persistent volume claims and persistent volumes. Another feature I really appreciate is its high availability, which means replication occurs in the backend. If a disk goes down or fails, it can recover due to high availability and replication. It also provides snapshots and backup capabilities, and it is excellent for disaster recovery. As an enterprise-grade storage solution, it includes encryption and security controls, ensuring encryption at rest and in transit.

The dynamic provisioning feature is the most valuable to my team. Initially, we were using local storage with iSCSI disks and had to manage the storage manually. With the introduction of Portworx Enterprise, we created a storage pool with several disks, allowing developers and end users to create storage without worrying about management. The management side values the encryption and security features it offers.

I see some limitations such as operational complexity. Configuring Portworx initially requires an understanding of key concepts and logic, meaning it is not straightforward for everyone to use. Debugging storage issues can be challenging if one lacks a storage background compared to traditional storage systems. Additionally, to use Portworx Enterprise in a Kubernetes or cloud-native environment, a sound understanding of Kubernetes is necessary, along with knowledge of persistent volumes, PVCs, and different types of storage.

I have been working in my current field for more than five years.

Portworx Enterprise is stable.

Portworx Enterprise has impressive scalability. It is suitable for large Kubernetes environments and supports multi-node clusters in multiple availability zone deployments. It has various storage disks and storage pools that allow easy expansion when different amounts of storage are needed.

The customer support for Portworx Enterprise is quite good. I had the opportunity to connect with the support team during the initial cluster deployment.

We used a local storage solution before adopting Portworx Enterprise. We previously had local storages in a storage pool and relied on a Linux-based iSCSI protocol to configure and provide storage.

Initially, we had to manage storage manually, configuring storage pools and needing protocols such as iSCSI to provide storage for our applications and stacks. However, with Portworx Enterprise, these manual tasks are greatly reduced. It significantly decreases operational overhead, allowing our stateful applications, as well as our registry, monitoring, and logging, to consume the available disk without manual intervention. We have even set up quota expandability, so if there is increased demand, it can scale as needed.

There is significant time saved since adopting Portworx Enterprise. Initially, we spent much time configuring storage during the Kubernetes cluster deployment and setup. With Portworx Enterprise, we simplified the installation process by setting up Portworx Enterprise storage cluster and LUNs directly after deploying the Kubernetes cluster. Once it is integrated with the cluster, multiple storage classes for object, block, and file storage can be created, allowing developers to easily make persistent volume claims. This change reduces both time and resource requirements for setting up the storage infrastructure.

The support is quite good, and there is a wealth of documentation available.

We considered HPE storage and NetApp before choosing Portworx Enterprise. Both NetApp and Portworx Enterprise are good solutions, and the choice often depends on the customer's infrastructure and budget.

My advice for others considering Portworx Enterprise is that if you operate in a cloud-native environment such as Kubernetes or OpenShift, this solution is worthwhile. Portworx Enterprise offers enterprise-grade cloud-native storage and has a comprehensive array of features suitable for Kubernetes environments. It is definitely worth trying and testing. I would rate this product a nine out of ten.

The main purpose was to replace the NSS as the back-end storage because they were using open source products. We shifted to Portworx to mainly implement shared volumes. We do not use the solution in a heavy environment.

Because we also needed block storage performance, not only NSS, it helped because we could implement PersistentVolumes without needing to know if it was HDS or EMC, using cloud-compatible storage like the feature they are deploying with AWS.

Portworx virtualizes the aspects of the underlying block storage. That is good because they can also use block storage for their future deployment instead of just NFS.

We were using MongoDB, and Portworx has many instructions for applications like MongoDB and Couchbase. They have a lot of documentation, so you can implement PersistentVolumes and PersistentVolumeClaims and construct the YAML based on the application.

I didn't implement it, but I saw many caveats with Portworx Backup. And today, we have other products that are far ahead of Portworx in terms of their backup implementation.

They have not integrated Portworx with Ondat since they are too focused now on Pure Storage APIs and not on users like us.

I have been using Portworx Enterprise for three months. We did a proof-of-concept for a customer.

I rate the scalability at least a nine out of ten.

I could rate the scalability at least a nine out of ten.

The main problem, since they are a small company, was when we opened a support request, there were too few people to handle it. The problem was also that OpenShift was very complex because we migrated from OpenShift 3 to 4, so many of the problems were more related to OpenShift.

Portworks knew the environment at that time and could guide us, and they had lots of documentation with comprehensive texts and best practices.

Positive

My old company evaluated Velero as a backup solution because it was free before VMware acquired it.

The deployment can be complex with Red Hat OpenShift, which closes off possibilities and even creates some barriers, such as while testing dynamic volume expansion. The deployment is complex with Red Hat and even worse now because IBM is adding its object storage. Portworx is not the problem.

The price is competitive, but it is too expensive when paired with Red Hat IBM.

As a company managed in a Kubernetes environment, being trusted by a Kubernetes vendor, Red Hat creates barriers against using other certified solutions that work. Because IBM is a competitor of Pure Storage, things seem to be getting worse.

I don't have plans to use Portworx Enterprise in the future because, at the moment, I am working with Ondat, and I have to follow NetApp's direction on that.

When evaluating Portworx, one should make sure their company has already chosen Pure Storage. Still, if they are evaluating the solution on Ondat or Dell or other platforms, they should get a roadmap statement from Pure Storage, that they will continue to develop storage hardware diagnostics.

I rate Portworx a nine out of ten.

The primary and exclusive purpose of this software is dedicated to storage, specifically for provisioning pure volumes within containerized environments.

A custom IBM script is designed to tackle the storage management challenges within containerized environments, providing crucial data services and features required for enterprise applications.

It would be highly advantageous to include an integrated backup solution within the same license, rather than purchasing backup separately. It would ensure a comprehensive and streamlined approach to data management and protection.

I have been working with it for a year now.

It is a highly stable and reliable tool.

It provides good scalability features.

Dealing with customer support can be challenging when there's an intermediary involved. However, this is a situation that we've encountered before and successfully resolved. We faced a similar issue with Dell, where, for instance, when purchasing storage solely as an OEM product, you are required to go through this intermediary rather than approaching the source directly.

Neutral

The decision to transition from Red Hat to another platform was driven by the customer's choice and was supported by IBM.

The initial setup proved to be a relatively straightforward process. It is important to note that the installation scripts provided by IBM are quite challenging. When working with these scripts, careful attention and caution are required since they are sourced directly from IBM.

The installation process is typically initiated by the customers themselves, and the customer specifically originates from IBM Cloudbox. This represents an OEM version, and since an enterprise requires a license, the customer must secure the necessary license directly from IBM.

I would recommend ensuring that you perform regular backups, specifically the TX backup, which is essential for Portworx. It's crucial to note that no other backup software is suitable for this purpose. Therefore, when obtaining the enterprise license, including a comprehensive backup solution is important as part of the package. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use it for storage. In terms of data locality, Portworx is pretty good compared to other technologies in the long run. We also have other SBS layers, but those are not enterprise, and there are not many offerings from those technologies, so I understand.

The best thing about Portworx is the Stork, they have called the VPS (Volume Replacement Strategy) and they also have topology awareness, and these are the three features I like. Additionally, the engine is thoroughly tested, and the load-balancing engine can handle the load very well.

One area where Portworx can be improved is with data locality. This is not always achieved, especially when we don't use VPS or when we don't have a sufficient number of worker nodes. Portworx generally guarantees data locality, but we have found that with a replica factor of two, we need six worker nodes to ensure data locality. Data locality is important because it allows data pods to find the data locally instead of going over the network. If the data is not locally present, it has to go over the network to get it. So data locality is an area that could be improved. Additionally, the documentation could be better. We have found quite a few bugs, and they need to improve the documentation to address this.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. It can easily scale up and down. Around 20 people in my organization might be using Portworx Enterprise at the time.

We've had a constant engagement with Portworx support and have raised quite a few bugs with their toolbox.

For the initial setup, the company provides Portworx's Spectrum, which generates URLs after passing a few details, making it seem straightforward. But it's not that easy. Sometimes issues arise during deployment because understanding the Portworx architecture is crucial. It has several components, such as KBDB, a Stork scheduler, and Portworx cluster, so understanding the architecture helps troubleshoot any issues.

The initial setup usually takes five minutes. It's pretty fast.

It has two offerings. One is free, which is limited to only five nodes. The other is enterprise, which is a bit pricier.

Let me give you an example of a customer. They provided storage but not for use with Kubernetes. The storage was network-attached and not integrated with Kubernetes. In order to integrate the storage with Kubernetes closely, you need to install drivers. Requests for PPE or PBC creation and volume creation should go through these drivers. The drivers are deployed as ports or deployments in Kubernetes. For example, Dell provides its own Kubernetes plugins when we use Dell storage, which makes it easy to provision the requested storage. Currently, it can interact with the storage.

In one of our customer's cases, the storage was connected to all of the nodes, but the integration was not done because that storage did not support Kubernetes integration.

We had a database application that needed dynamic volume provisioning, which was not the case. We tried initially with Longhorn, but we ran into many issues. So we had to drop the idea of Longhorn and go with Portworx. When compared with Longhorn, Portworx was better in terms of performance and handling of the load. So we deployed the solution and tested it thoroughly. We went through the Portworx documentation and features. Basically, Portworx uses Stork, which is one of their native technologies that you can leverage as Kubernetes. Whenever a port request comes in, it goes to the Kubernetes scheduler and that information is passed to Stork. Stork then assigns scores to the worker nodes based on the volume where it is present. This ensures data locality, and Portworx does it better than other technologies in the long run. So based on that, Portworx will be deployed on a node where the volume is already present.

I would recommend the solution depending on the use case. If a use case demands support, and the high-performance, then you should go for Portworx. Also, consider the type of application you want to use it for and take certain factors into consideration before going into the storage, VPS layer, or CSI.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because of the data locality, documentation, and possibly a cheaper price, which could increase the score. It works quite well under intensive load, and support is available. It does what it has to do at the end of the day.

I like that you have a small dedicated file system that is fast and resilient for containerized workloads. If I containerize a database server, I know that not only is Portworx providing a persistent and resilient storage backend, but it also meets the database's IOPS requirements, in a containerized environment.

It competes with Rancher's Longhorn.

I would like to see a more native mapping to mainframe-type systems. At some point, the older dinosaur mainframes will either be phased out of the industry, or the mainframes will be built to at least modern standards.

Portworx Enterprise has exceptional stability.

The scalability is outstanding.

It's a team of five that deal with anything that's on our Kubernetes environment. I am one of the five, even though I'm a director, I still am an engineer by trade, and I'm certified in all three clouds right now.

It would be our traditional engineers. We just up-skill them to be cloud-ready and cloud-native. They deal with a whole new type of infrastructure. 

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. You couldn't have asked for a more ideal situation. It was as simple as entering your host key and receiving your license. You're all set to go from there. It's plug and play, in any Kubernetes environment.

I'm not sure how the licensing was broken out, but I don't think our offering of the Portworx was more than USD $20,000.

We have no issues with the price. They prove their savings. They will talk to you about what you currently have and then they will break out what that cost is. And then they will come back and say, here's what our cost is. They show value in their product.

Portworx. We haven't done anything. We are licensed for Portworx, but we haven't implemented it and incorporated it into our use case scenario. However, we will use Portworx with our Kubernetes cluster. Some of us use Portworx on a personal level, which is their lighter version of Portworx, and it's amazing.

Pure, is an amazing company. That company has kept its word. I have other businesses that I talk to that leverage them, and we all feel the same way. Pure came into the industry and said, I'm going to answer your questions and I'm going to address your complaints. And they did.

I would rate Portworx Enterprise a ten out of ten.

Portworx Enterprise is really useful when we are working in a cloud environment or when we are working with Kubernetes.

Portworx Enterprise has improved our efficiency while deploying Kubernetes solutions.

The solution is user-friendly.

The integration has room for improvement. Currently, Portworx Enterprise does not support Google Cloud or Oracle Cloud.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is simple. 

The price of Portworx Enterprise is high.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

We don't have much experience with Portworx, but it's primarily for containers.

Portworx is a simple solution. It's similar to Pure Storage products. They're all easy to use and install. You need to have a little expertise with containers to use Portworx, but it will be no problem for you if you understand containers.

I think the vendor could provide more training for new users who may not be familiar with containers. 

We've been selling Portworx Enterprise for the last six months.

I can't really comment on Portworx's stability because I don't have much experience with it. 
Six months is not enough to tell.

Portworx's scalability is more than enough for our needs.

We haven't contacted technical support yet, but I think it should be good enough based on previous experience with other products from the same vendor.

The Portworx isn't complex. You need some basic knowledge about containers, but you don't need to be an expert. If you know how containers work, you can install Portworx easily. Support for deployment is provided by a remote engineer in another region.

The license is based on the notes and the capacity, I think. It's not expensive. It's about average for solutions of this type. I don't believe it costs more than Microsoft products. 

I rate Portworx Enterprise 10 out of 10. I would recommend Portworx for anyone who uses Kubernetes or any other kind of container. Portworx is a great solution for managing container environments.