Dell XtremIO Reviews

• Integrated Copy Data Management (iCDM): It allows instant creation of high performance copies by accelerating the environmental testing with no need for redoing builds. A duplicate copy can be spawned up for DEV- trunk/ Integration/Test with QA.

• Virtual Desktop infrastructure (VDI): Where one consolidated infrastructure that leverages off resources can act as a baseline and be locked down with a secure image to all call center agents.
• Rapid Inline Deduplication/ Compression: Helps capacity planning to reduce the amount of SAN needed. Prevents the deduplication of the same data. This can allow ratios of 2:1, or even as high as 7:1, depending upon what data subsets are used.

• Utilizing the snapshot technology, (recovery point), has been great for development.
• Inline data reduction using deduplication and/or compression has improved batch times for one of our PostgreSQL database environments.

• The management server needs to be integrated. XtremIO VNX and VMAX have separate management software stacks for managing the various arrays.
• We would also like to see one universal management view into all these sub-systems. For example, IBM SVC and Pure Storage Purity each have one universal software management view.

I have used it for just over three years.

The earlier version before Version 4.0 had several stability issues. It is now more stable, albeit not 100%.

There were no scalability issues.

I would give technical support a rating of 6/10.

We have a two vendor approach with HDS and EMC.

The initial setup was straightforward, providing that the correct code levels were applied before initializing.

When considering pricing and licensing issues, note the following:

• The 8192 volume limit
• Snapshots count as logical volume
• Every replicated snapshot also counts

We evaluated Pure Storage, but on a FA-420 controller.

A testing and integration PoC needs to be done with full diligence.

• Dedupe, because we achieve 3.5X space savings with XtremIO
• Snapshot copies
• Ease of use
• Improvement in storage efficiency without compromising on performance

We have just used the product in a proof of concept test and we are yet to move it into production.

Integration with other EMC SAN storage array ecosystems like VMAX3, Unity, etc., especially for consistency group protection: This will help to consistently recover applications which are spread across multiple product lines like VMAX3 and XtremIO for various reasons.

I could give an example of SQL DB hosted in EMC VMAX array with SRDF replication to a remote site for disaster recovery.

If we have to move part of the volumes (like TempDB, Indexes,logs. Etc) into XtremIO and part remains in VMAX, the whole server won’t be able to able to get recovered with consistent point in time of recovery due to different replication technologies in 2 different platforms (VMAX and XtremIO).

I meant to say that it may be perfect for other environments but not for environments which are heavily dependent upon SRDF based replication. There might be ways to get around like implementing Recoverpoint for VMAX and XtremIO but the integration was complex in our use case.

I have been using the product for one year.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

The technical support is good.

We did not use any other solution beforehand.

The initial setup was straightforward with a very simple-to-use interface.

All the software-inclusive licensing simplifies the cost model.

We did not evaluate other options.

Mileages vary, so please test the dedupe rate and performance metrics you are achieving for your workload, before implementing in production.

I appreciate its ease of use and simplicity. The device is painless to configure and has great deduplication and compression rates.

We have saved costs on storage and our users are getting quick response times for Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI).

The only item that I can think of, is the ability to add more XtremeIO bricks as one logical partition rather than two separate ones.

Two years.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support depends on the technician. Usually most technicians are knowledgeable but sometimes you get a few that lack the knowledge.

We previously used a VNX series storage array. The array was not as fast as an all-flash array.

Initial setup was straightforward.

Don’t be scared; it is worth it in the end. EMC and the vendor will work with you.

We evaluated Tintri and it was not suitable for us.

Once you use it, you will not regret it.

Flash array with deduplication and compression.

• Helps VDI users for business growth
• Provides good performance
• Cost effective
• For the VDI environment, deduplication is effective. The OS deployed will have the same data again.
• Flash provides good performance

I would like to see improvements in the database workloads. During the testing of database workloads, we found it slow to process I/O requests. This may be due to the compression/deduplication feature available in the product which is still being taken care of by the same controllers.

The product designer should provide a recommendation for which type of workload deduplication/compression will be effective.

This is good to have for VDI, but not for high database workloads though its flash array.

We have been using this solution for the past two years.

There were some stability issues initially, but there aren’t many issues now.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

Technical support is good.

We had multiple tier storage without deduplication/compression. We switched due to cost and performance.

The solution is easy to implement and administer.

This solution is good for VDI environments, but not recommended for database workloads.

Compression and de-duplication are the most valuable features, especially when compared to other All-flash arrays like Solidfire, Violin Memory or Pure Storage.

Overall space usage has decreased, plus input/output operations per second (IOPS). Performance has increased exponentially.

The replication and DR capabilities could be improved, since there is no native replication technique with XtremIO. EMC wants customers to rely on EMC RecoverPoint for those needs or VPLEX for DR sorts. Native replication is needed.

I have used it for 3 years.

I did not encounter any stability issues, it is very user friendly and easy to use.

Scalability was non-hazardous and even online.

Technical support was exemplary with a very fast response time by Dell EMC.

We used to employ high-end and mid-range products from multiple vendors like EMC and NetApp before we switched to XtremIO for good performance and space economical-ability.

Initial setup of this product following stacking and racking servers is straightforward. The product is not complex in its modus-operandi and you have the bonus of sources and support availability.

Pricing is definitely on the higher side and licensing plus maintenance can come as a package. I recommend this as a good negotiation technique with EMC.

We first evaluated and selected VIMM (NVRAM chip) arrays which were faster than XtremIO but costlier. We then looked at new players like Nutanix, and even ScaleIO. But in the end, XtremIO turned out to be cost-effective and at the same time worth spending for the change.

Be it XtremIO or anything else, you need to see that requirements are aligned with the following:

- Data Centre space and cost.
- Storage growth trend and capacity forecast.
- Application performance and requirements.
- Operational readiness and implementation timelines.

Its consistent speed and replication features are most valuable to us. It provides a better user experience and replication for DR purposes.

In the VDI arena, it helped speed up VDI sessions and also helped improve the amount of VDIs versus disks.

Replication: EMC should have native replication ability, not something you have to take an outage for in order to install, i.e., if you did not purchase the replication when you rolled out the storage array.

Native replication is important for a few reasons:

• If something goes wrong, it gives you more of a "one throat to choke" scenario, meaning you only have to talk to one or two vendors.
• Native replication is usually cheaper, especially IP replication (versus fiber-based replication).
• When replication is native, you can usually have more insight at to what is replicated and what is not, instead of having to query various different things to get an answer.
• Native replication is usually easier to set up and maintain. It also has little less administrative work and overhead costs.

I have used this solution for about two years.

I would give the technical support a 8/10 rating.

We had VDI running on another storage array. Thus, we switched to this solution so that we could utilize the speed and the inline deduplication.

Make sure you understand and check how EMC’s replication and licensing policy for replication works.

Also make sure you are at the latest code and fully understand how the grouping and clustering of hosts on the storage array works.

Data services: Deduplication and Compression. XtremIO performs both these data efficiencies in-line with no latency cost to the hosts. Also the APIs, using APIs you can provision an entire ESXi cluster using PowerShell and VC credentials within a few minutes.

I have leveraged XtremIO to reduce data center foot print significantly saving my company tens of thousands annually in floor space, power, and cooling.

Volume limits of 8192 per XMS and stability. I have unfortunately had some bad experience with bugs and failed upgrades. It has improved with the new 4.0 code but it’s still not as good as typical EMC.

XtremIO and Pure Storage have a volume limit. XtremIO is 8192 logical volumes per XMS management server. XMS can manage multiple XIO clutters, if you do that your volume count is 8192 across all the clusters XMS is managing. Pure Storage has just released code to go to 5000. A logical volume on XIO is any volume, whether it’s a snapshot or a volume presented to a host. Whereas Pure Storage only counts a snapshot that is hydrated.

Two years.

See my comments above regarding room for improvement.

Not yet.

I have had pretty good support including being escalated to engineering very quickly, this could be considered a good thing or a bad thing…

Mostly all VMAX, we switched for the consolidation of datacenter space.

It’s more complicated than a VNX but easier than a VMAX. The fact the array has a separate management server and that server has its own code levels that are not in line with the array can be confusing, much like Solutions Enabler. I highly recommend always purchasing a physical XMS and only use the virtual appliance in a pinch.

If you plan on replicating XIO to XIO you will have to buy RecoverPoint, XIO to XIO only needs SE RecoverPoint lic but that won’t allow you to use RPA to migrate from VNX/VMAX to XIO so consider the EX lic. Remember ever snapshot counts as a logical volume so every replication snapshot counts toward your overall 8192 volume limit. I highly recommend large LUNs to keep your volume count low. We are using 4TB or larger.

I POC’d XIO, Pure Storage, and IBM SVC with TMS array. We chose XIO because of its scalable by adding bricks where as Pure Storage you have to buy more arrays creating islands and more management. Also, had some issues with PURE post processing of data services. We felt the SVC for IBM introduced significant latency to their AFA TMS. TMS alone is the fastest All Flash Array but it doesn’t have any data services, that is what SVC is used for.

Consider your migration methods to this array and know your data. For instance, if you are running Windows 2012 you may consider disabling ODX on the entire array which is disruptable or disabling on every single 2012 host. Talk to your SE about this.