Dell ObjectScale Reviews

I have a few customers using Dell ECS.

Dell ECS is a Security Information and Event Management(SIEM) solution.

Dell ECS could improve the price of the solution. It is expensive.

I have used Dell ECS within the last 12 months.

Dell ECS is stable.

I have found Dell ECS to be scalable.

The support from Dell ECS is better than NetApp.

I rate the support from Dell ECS a nine out of ten.

I have used NetApp previously, and Dell ECS is a better solution.

Dell ECS provides useful conversion guides for the implementation.

The price of Dell ECS should be reduced.

I recommend the solution to others.

I rate Dell ECS an eight out of ten.

Dell EMC ECS is for object storage, e.g. for storing some of the archival, internal APIs.

I'm recommending Dell EMC ECS because it's a Dell product, and it's as competitive as NetApp StorageGRID. I like that it gives standard SG (storage group) the same as StorageGRID. They're both good. I'm satisfied with Dell EMC ECS, in general.

There's one problem with Dell EMC ECS. There are certain utility processes that come from the boot, and there isn't any user who can execute them. It's comparable to a serious power migration. The segregation of duty needs to be improved in this product, e.g. we have role-based access controls, so they should support segregation of duty, as that would be very helpful.

These days, everyone's trying to get more unified storage, and then you need to have a single pane of glass to allow everything, so it would be good if the next release of this product would have a single pane of glass for smarter observation and better control mechanism.

Dell EMC ECS is a stable product, though we'll no longer be needing it.

We have no problems with Dell EMC ECS, in terms of scalability.

I evaluated NetApp StorageGRID.

We have experience using both NetApp and Dell EMC ECS in our company. We also have experience with Dell EMC VNX and FlexPod. We are trying to retire Dell EMC ECS.

We're trying to migrate our whole data center into the cloud, so we'll no longer require usage of Dell EMC ECS.

I don't currently have a cost comparison, so it won't be fair to comment on the pricing for Dell EMC ECS.

People in our company who are Dell EMC ECS SMEs are happy, so I'm giving a rating of nine out of ten for the solution. We are also trying to retire it, but I see that those who are working with it have sympathy for it, so it's a nine.

Dell EMC ECS is the leading storage area network, you can do anything with it. Some companies have 10,000 users, it depends on the structure.

The technology is very good, it performs well.

It is a good solution, except for the cost.

I have been using Dell EMC ECS for 15 years.

The stability is perfect.

Dell EMC ECS is an enterprise solution. It works for small, medium and large enterprise organizations.

Technical support of Dell EMC ECS is fine as long as you are paying your licensing for both software and hardware. If you are paying for higher level support you will receive higher level support.

I have worked on all enterprise storage solutions.

All storage is different. You need qualified people who understand storage to install it.

The solution requires a qualified competent technical team to install it.

Dell EMC ECS solution is expensive. It requires an annual subscription, monthly will not work for the user or for Dell.

This solution can be for everybody. You need to assess your own needs. Dell EMC ECS covers solutions across the board. You can't go wrong with a universal leadership product.

I rate the solution an 8 out of 10.

We are using version 3. It's deployed on-premises. We are using it as a DR as of now. We have the Isilon in our environment, so we are taking the tertiary backups to this ECS just for disaster recovery purposes. It's secondary storage.

We are increasing our usage. Our primary storage is growing, so we have to go to secondary storage to cope with the data. We refresh it almost every six months or one year at least.

Because it's secondary storage, users don't have direct access to it. Only the storage administrators have access to it for any DR or any recovery, but the primary storage itself is used by around 17,000 people. It's one of the largest Isilon clusters in the UK. It's around 106 nodes.

It's definitely good for unstructured data. In earlier days, we had Centera, so for the DR, it's really good. It has a load balancing facility, and we're using it with the Kemp Load Balancer.

The disaster recovery could be improved because there should be something in-built within the ECS. Search and recovery should be in-built. Right now, we have to use some external tools for performing the recovery itself. For example, we're using Atempo or deploying Golden Superna, so it has dependency on the external third-party vendors.

Currently, there aren't any pain points with this solution, but there have been some in the past. From the Golden Superna perspective, one pain point was that we weren't able to deploy it successfully. Dell, which provides this solution, was not able to deliver it successfully. The problem was that they deployed the Superna Golden Copy for the recovery purpose, where we create the buckets for the file-level recovery. But the solution itself was deployed on one of the VMs, and the problem was that we were told that this VM where the Superna Golden Copy was setting itself would only direct the Isilon to replicate or take the backup to the ECS directly. However, later on, we were able to discover that this was not directing itself. All of the data had to travel through the VM itself. There were a lot of issues in that case because we were going to face a bottleneck in our production environment, and we discarded that.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half because we deployed it last year in the TRL environment.

I would say it is stable. I don't think there have been any issues so far.

The scalability is good. We are scaling it now, and we're going to add another two nodes in the next two months.

Dell support is very good.

I have experience with Centera, which is also a Dell product but the old one. That's also an object storage kind of solution, but that's an absolute technology now. I know of the technology on the cloud as well, like the NetApp StorageGRID, which is the same technology as the object storage.

Deployment was not complex, but the solution itself wasn't mature. They have provided the solution, which they have not tested in the multiple environment itself.

Deployment took around two to three months. There was a project team working with us. The hardware was applied very quickly. It wasn't very difficult, but the main structure, which was Golden Copy or the Atempo, took two to three months.

It's a lease-based model, so it's capacity-based. We already negotiated the price a lot, but we're still doing that with Dell because somehow the product was not installed successfully, so there was a lot of struggle in the distributor territory between Dell and the environment itself. I would give the solution a 6 out of 10 for the pricing. There's a little room for improvement.

There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

I didn't evaluate any other options because I didn't directly choose this option; it was the customer. But because the majority of the landscape was occupied by Dell, we had to go for the ECS only. They tried to put something on the cloud. We explored some options with the customer, but that didn't work out well because they wanted something on-premises, and for the on-premises, we had only two options: ECS or StorageGRID, or we had to go for the Equinix Data Center, the core location data center.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. It's a good solution. If someone doesn't want to go on the cloud, then this is the best solution that we have in the market right now. It's reliable and stable.

There should have been some POC done by the vendor itself. Either it should have been done for a small chunk, but a POC should have been done before implementing it because I don't think they have many customers as of now. My environment has some external dependencies, like Superna Golden Copy and Atempo, so that might be why they are facing those situation load issues.

We installed it last year at a customer site.

We use it for archive and for backups, our third copy backups.

The storage is cheap.

It's easier than tape. We use it instead of tape now. 

We've found the solution to have good stability.

The product can scale. 

It's my understanding that the initial setup is straightforward. 

Technical support seems to be pretty helpful.

The issue we have is the solution is doing a system Read-Only to only 90%. Instead of 100%, you get the read-only at 90%. It's hard to explain to the customer that, "your system is full, you only have it at 90% full, however, yes, that's considered full even though you have 10% left." You should be able to calculate so that when it's full it's 100% full, not just 90%. 

I've worked with the solution for a little over a year. 

The solution feels pretty stable. We have not had any issues with it, aside from discs now and then. We have about six petabytes. It's a lot of discs, that we have, and only a few have failed. it's a small number in comparison to the big picture. We've been running it for a year pretty much without incident. 

The solution is more suitable for larger organizations as opposed to smaller companies. 

It's a product that is easy to scale. 

It's been working fine and therefore we haven't used technical support that much. We use it when we expand the system with more notes, and for the GEODrive. We might have some questions about that, however, overall it's been pretty good and problem-free.

I've been working with storage for 20 or 30 years or something like that. I've been with IBM, NetApp, and other EMC products before Dell. I've had experience with HPE, 3PARs, and Nimble. I've used pretty much every storage product on the market.

The difference depends on basically the customer and what they have from the beginning. Each product has its positive attributes. It depends on what the customers are going to do with it. We have other archive products that are at least as good as the ECS.

While the initial setup looks pretty straightforward, we didn't actually do the implementation. 

There are things in the background that are running, of course, however in terms of maintenance requirements, it's not that much.

In terms of pricing, for the performance it gives, it's quite competitive. It's not the best performance, so you get what you pay for, however, if you want performance for, for example, a file server, or something like that, ECS is not the right product. That said, the pricing also depends on the customer and how much discount they get, et cetera. There are different licensing models. 

I'm a consultant. We're a partner and reseller.

We are using the latest version. We just updated it in August or September. 

I'd advise new users to buy enough nodes for the performance so that you calculate the performance correctly, as that can be an issue for some.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. For how we use it, we are quite happy with its capabilities.

The tool is easy to use. 

Dell ECS needs to improve its performance. 

Dell ECS is stable. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

I rate the solution's scalability a five out of ten. My company has 2000 users. 

The tool's support is good. 

The tool's deployment is easy. 

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. I recommend it since it is reliable, stable, and easy to use. 

We use the solution for archives and unstructured data.

It is a good product. The performance is good.

The initial setup is not so easy.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool has unlimited scalability. We have one architect and a few enterprise engineers on our technical team.

The initial setup is not so easy. However, we have the skills. We can contact Dell’s engineers for remote deployment. They provide a service called ProDeploy. It is an expensive option, so we prefer not to contact them. If something goes wrong, we can involve the engineers.

The product is quite expensive. The vendor provides us with discounts, though.

We compared the solution with HPE and NetApp. Dell ECS is cheaper than HPE but a little bit more expensive than NetApp.

Our company hasn't sold the solution yet. However, we designed several projects and have at least two in progress. We have certified engineers and architects to draw and design everything. Currently, we have a project for archiving photocopies of tax reports. I recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My customers for Dell ECS belong to the healthcare industry. If a customer has a lot of images, a large amount of data, and multiple websites, Dell ECS is a recommended product to use.

What I like best about Dell ECS is its stability. I also like that you can use it for large-scale data purposes. The solution works fine for me, and I haven't encountered any issues with it.

If Dell ECS would be available as standalone software, so you can use any hardware with it, would make the solution better.

It would also be good if Dell ECS had more integrations with other products.

I've been working with Dell ECS for a few months now.

Dell ECS is a stable solution.

Dell ECS is a scalable solution.

So far, the technical support for Dell ECS has been good.

I didn't do the setup for Dell ECS, so I'm not aware of how easy or complex it is.

If I remember correctly, Dell ECS is an appliance, so if you buy Dell ECS, you also have to buy the hardware, while IBM is standalone software, so you can buy IBM as software only without needing to buy the hardware.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating the pricing for Dell ECS a four.

I evaluated IBM Cloud Object Storage.

I'm not a user of object storage solutions, but a seller.

I provide Dell ECS to clients.

Five people use Dell ECS within my organization.

Dell ECS is a solution I would recommend to others.

My rating for Dell ECS is seven out of ten because IBM has a better object storage solution.