HPE 3PAR StoreServ Reviews

We run a High Performance Computing grid for Nuance and run GPFS on top of 3PAR. We are using SAS-based 3PAR for data and the 8450s, all SSD, for the metadata.

It has been performing great. We have had SSD based 3PARs since 2013 and we have only lost about four drives so far.

We are an R&D group, so it does not change the function. However, it improves the performance for our grids. 

It allows us to buy less capacity for performance. We would buy spindles just for the IOPs, so we were wasting space for the performance. Now, we don't have to.

The performance is the most valuable. We had the spindle problem that most places have. With the chunklet technology, it allowed us to spread our load across all our drives, unlike traditional raid groups that can leave some disks idle while other take the load.

It is more specific to High Performance Computing, but I would like to see a faster Ethernet connection. Right now, it is 10G. If they could do multiple hundred gigs to speed up the transfer from the array to the servers, that would be good. We are trying to get away from Fibre Channel.

When we went to 3PAR, it has the Call-Home function. Now, I do not have to do a whole lot for monitoring and problems. The sales engineer (SE) will show up with a drive, and say "You've got a drive down." Therefore, we don't even monitor it.

This makes our job so much easier.

We typically max them out. When we buy an array, we buy a SAS-based array with 480 drives. We use a clustered file system on it that prefills the LUNs, so it looks likes it's full the day that we get it. We receive sales calls asking, "You are beyond 95 percent full, do you want to buy another one?" However, we have not even started yet! 

When we want to scale, we buy another one. We spread the filesystem horizontally across arrays.

We used the technical support early on for tuning and configuration. We went pretty deep with tech support onsite to get the most out of the arrays.

We had the MSA P2000 series previously. We had 120 of them in one data center. Therefore, we went from the MSAs to the 3PAR, and the decision-making was based on the performance. Our issues was neither a throughput nor an IOP problem, but more of a file open issue. We have billions of files where you need a lot of different spindles with different heads moving around independently of each other. 3PAR provided this for us.

We first started with the 3PAR V400 series, which is two racks that had to be wired together to provide 600TB of storage.  With the 15TB SSD based arrays we replace 6 racks of V400's with 8U of 8450's. 

In R&D, it is hard to put an ROI on time. We are a worldwide company with Ph.D.'s working on the system 24/7. We don't want them waiting around so everything we do to speed up their process helps.

You can find cheaper storage but you pay for performance.  3PARs performance has been consistent.  I have seen other arrays slow down as the load increases due to controller saturation.

We had been an HPE customer before, and when we first started with the MSAs, we had an issue where HPE got a batch of drives in from one of their vendors that had a bad firmware on it. Basically, we had to replace 960 drives with the system online.  HPE recognized replacing 750G drives with 500G drives was less capacity than what we purchased so they gave us three more arrays just so they could match the space. That was a huge turning point for us going to HPE. We have had vendors say, "It's your problem. Deal with it." We have had vendors walk away from us. For HPE to actually come up and do this, that was a big deal.

We benchmark vendor solutions ourselves, and knowing the internal technology that makes it work is important.

We had a project where we did get somebody else's storage. It got to the point where we could not keep it performing enough to keep up with the load. We ended up just getting rid of it after a year of problems.

With our 3PARs, we have never lost data.

I would really push the chunklet technology. That is the main benefit out of 3PAR. The way it subdivides a disk into 1GB chunks. 

The our primary use cases for 3PAR are:

• We have some secure applications which use it.
• We have some built-in, embedded applications that we use on it. 
• We have some major critical applications which run on 3PAR. 
• We are using flash arrays 2850 and 8440.

The company has been using 3PAR for approximately eight to 10 years. I joined in 2015, and since the day I joined, we had these 8440s flash arrays. Lately, this year only, we bought these new flash arrays, because we had some issues with the 8440s, especially with the drives. After we migrated the 8440s to the 2850s, we have not been seeing performance issues anymore. It seems as if all of the performance issues have disappeared, which is a big achievement.

With the new flash arrays, 3PAR has improved our performance. Also, the new StoreServ Management Console (SSMC) tool is more user-friendly.

We are using the SSMC tool. In combination with it, there is a lot happening around InfoSight, and we are spending a lot of time on it. It does seem like there is some additional functionality built into InfoSight that we can use effectively.

We need additional enhancements to InfoSight, especially from a VM standpoint. Today, we can see in the Azure VM performance stats in 3PAR, but it is so huge, we can't just drill down on each and every VM and look at its performance. We want to add rates of performance issues from VM points of time frame. Therefore, we can look, for example at 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, and see how the VMs performed. That particularly feature is not there today in InfoSight.

We are also seeing that there are some enhancements which are required in the SSMC console. There are some features that we do not see in the dashboard. E.g., if the 3PAR is not completely healthy because the remote copy helps are not performing, the dashboard will show all green, so there are some additional enhancements required. 

We are not seeing any issues. No hardware failures.

I would rate stability as a nine out of 10.

I would rate scalability as a nine out of 10.

I would rate technical support as a nine out of 10.

As a storage admin, my return on investment is having the system up at all times functioning properly and seeing no performance issues. This is what we are seeing after we recently migrated to our new flash arrays.

Since the prices of the flash storage has gone down tremendously, I would definitely recommend going for the all-flash storage array or 3PAR. It is a big expensive even now, but it will be the future of all industries. 

We are a multi-vendor shop, even today. We do have some IBM storage in our environment, but most of our critical applications sit on 3PAR.

I will recommend going with the all-flash arrays, especially on 3PAR, because that is something that I have personally experience with and I have not seen any issues.

We are using it for the storage for our on-premise servers, which are both Oracle workloads, as well as having many VMs. We have a lot of complex business needs around legacy things.

Our organization has been using 3PAR for about a decade. The performance has been good.

Everything runs smoothly.

The expandability is good. 

HPE can login, fix things, alert us to things, and upgrade. We are there and aware, but we do not do the work. So, that is good.

There are some weird things that we can't figure out.

Stability is good.

Scalability is good.

My team is happy with technical support. However, I have not called them personally.

We had EVAs before, then switched to an earlier generation of 3PAR.

If you can afford it on-premise, and that is the way you want to go, then it is a good solution. 

Overall, it has been a good product, and it is stable.

We use 3PAR as our main production environment. Therefore, we use it for everything from VMware to our NAS solutions. It is used for complex business needs, because we also store all of our databases on the 3PAR as well.

We have a lot of systems at the airport where I work. So, we have a lot of Oracle databases, which run a lot of core functionality. This includes the financial systems. We have a large maintenance program, and we have to track all of our maintenance needs. This is all done through an Oracle database. All of these databases are on the 3PAR. 

We have about 500 users. All of their user data is stored on the 3PAR for groups and user data. Then, most of our environment is in VMware. Thus, we have a reasonable sized VMware environment of about 700 servers, and that all runs off of the 3PAR.

It has improved our functions because we have a very small IT team. We have to do a lot of things. The more solutions that we can bring onboard which are easy to use and do not require too much maintenance, this is good for us. We just do not have enough bandwidth to cover everything.

Therefore, we are always looking for good solutions which do their job well and are easy to use. 

3PAR is fairly easy to use. We have used a few different arrays in the past, and they were a lot more complicated. This one was fast to bring up and start using right away. It is easy to keep running and does not require too much effort. It has been very reliable, which is key.

Foremost, we look for a reliable solution foremost, and 3PAR has been very reliable.

I would like to see the ability to be able to migrate to newer versions of the 3PAR without having to take any of our data offline and be able to upgrade on the fly. That would be a great feature.

The controllers are going to age out, then eventually they will need new controllers. If we could upgrade those controllers live without interruption, that would be great.

The stability has been great. We have had zero issues.

The scalability is good because it is easy to add in new disks. We just add them on the fly, and they are available for use. We do not have to go in, then configure then. We just put the disks in, then they are available, so it is easy.

I needed to invest in a new solution because the previous solution was getting old.

We wanted to go to market to find a better solution. We wanted something that had a little more intelligence. However, because we are a semi-public company, we had to go to market. We could not just pick 3PAR.

The 3PAR actually had to prove itself. It had to be scored and graded across a panel of people in order to win the bid. Not only that, it had to have a good price.

It was not complex.

We had a third-party vendor help set it up. We had two weeks to set it up, and we had it done within one week. We had a whole week to sit back and enjoy it.

I have seen ROI, because it has performed extremely well so far. The amount of data that we have flowing through it has worked out very well.

The return on investment for me is that all of my customers are happy. That is a really good return on investment: less complaining.

We evaluated Hitachi, NetApp, EMC, Dell, and 3PAR. We went with 3PAR because of price and the functionality had everything that we wanted it to do. Also, the presentation that the HPE team put together went really well.

Give the product a good, hard look, because HPE does a very good job. They are a market leader. They are not a small player in the space. You can be very comfortable when dealing with a company like HPE.

It is doing everything that we want it to do. We are not that big, so we did not have a lot of crazy requirements. Therefore, it is doing everything we want it to do. The other big factor is that it is easy to use.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Price
• Easy of use
• Ability to have two arrays back each other up. In case one of them has a problem, the other one can take over.

We use it as a shared storage solution for a virtualized environment. It is not for complex business needs. It is really just for storage, and not even a very large amount of storage: between 20 to 40 terabytes.

We have used it in three environments. We were not happy with the performance initially, because it turned out the system was initially designed for Fibre Channel, and we needed iSCSI. So, we used the iSCSI configuration option off of 3PAR. This was probably when 3PAR was purchased by HPE, but the performance were extraordinarily bad in terms of I/O capabilities. It took a long time to obtain HPE's help and resolve the issue. This was for iSCSI in the context of VMware for shared storage.

The product is not for us. We deploy solutions on-premise. We use this product for one of our customers.

We would like to see better support for iSCSI.

After being properly configured, it has been a very stable product.

Our systems are fairly static once they have been deployed.

Their technical support is bad. I would rate it as a two out of 10. 

After we insisted for quite some time, then we did receive good support. However, it was a bother, we would have liked to have known initially that the system was not designed for iSCSI.

In the end, we ended up selecting something else.

We were previously using multiple vendors. We switched to 3PAR for more performance, reliability, and we had challenges with MSAs (low-end storage).

The initial setup takes about two days.

I have not seen any ROI so far.

We evaluated Nexsan. However, we wanted to stay with HPE.

Be extremely careful if you want to use the iSCSI feature of the 3PAR. It was not designed for it initially.

We were using low-end storage from HPE. I was hoping to get something a bit midrange in their storage, in terms of price with the reliability. I am still hoping that it will be reliable despite poor initial performance previously. As the problem was fixed, I am hopeful it would be reliable in the long run.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: We need something stable and reliable in the long run. Our contracts are at least five years, and they can be extended all of the way to seven to 10 years.

It runs all our tier one and two apps. Right now, we are replicating between two 3PARs and two different data centers. We use for our tier one and two apps, so they can do failover, synchronous replication.

We have been running 3PAR for three years. It was running well until we tried to split our two 3PARs and put them into two different data centers. Then, we had a lot of problems.

I do not think it has changed the way that we function.

When we were having problems, it actually hurt us. Before that, we did not have any problems.

The most valuable feature when we purchased it was that it was a four-node system. However, the throughput knowledge should be a lot better than what we previously had (EMC).

A lot of tasks, you have to manually set up. They need to already have them set up and working. Then, you can just go in and tweak them if you need to. There are a lot of things that we did not know that we needed to schedule and make happen, and that is what we found out six months ago.

Stability is a little lower than EMC, because of the problems that we have had. We ran EMC for the last 10 years and never had any problems with it.

We have not scaled it up yet.

We worked with technical support for six months to get the splitting 3PAR issue resolved. We met every day, until it was finally resolved, but it took six months. It was good that the issue was resolved, but we were disappointed it took so long.

3PAR was quite a bit less money than EMC, and that was one of the deciding factors. 

We switched because of the cost and 3PAR's four-node system, because they said we should get more throughput from the four-node system, since EMC is a two-node system.

3PAR is more complex to set up and start than EMC. There are a lot more things that you have to do and know that you need to do. Where with EMC, stuff sits there and runs.

The initial setup only took a few weeks to get it going. However, this is when we found out there were a lot of things that we did not have set up right. We just got these fixed about six months ago.

HPE assisted us with the initial setup, but they did not tell us about all these other things which needed to be done.

For the amount of downtime that we have had, I do not know if it was a good option. We might have been better to spend the extra money and stay with EMC, therefore not experiencing any downtime.

Purchasing maintenance: You can't get software maintenance from a third party. You have to do it from HPE, which is a letdown.

We did not evaluate other vendors.

Evaluate if the money savings is worth it. One of the problems that we have had is HPE spec'd it out for us. They underspec'd it, so this was one of our problems with performance. It did not have the amount of drives in it that we needed.

Pay attention to what you are spec'ing out and make sure that it will meet your requirements.

It is a good product, but it is very software driven, and it has some software problems. That will be our challenge going forward. Once we go out of maintenance, how do we keep the system up-to-date software-wise, if we have problems purchasing maintenance?

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Cost is definitely part of it and reliability has to be there. When you buy something, you do not know what you are getting until you purchase it and put it into production. We did not do any type of try and buy. It was just off the word of the vendor.

It is for mission critical storage. We use it to keep high uptime. We have two 3PAR systems that we leverage.

Its performance is good. We have a lot of applications that have high I/O, and 3PAR handles those with no problem.

It has improved uptime, as well as speed to delivery.

The uptime for mission critical, because have website services that provides 24/7 roadside support. Therefore, we treat it like it is an emergency service and always has to be up.

We would like to see smoother firmware upgrades going forward. We cannot afford to go down. When we went down, it was very painful for all our mission critical system. When we bought the system, we were under the impression that we were supposed to do firmware upgrades transparently, and on the fly with no impact, and it was very impacting. However, this is the only time that we had any issues.

The reliability has been good, except for upgrades. We did a firmware upgrade, and it brought the whole sandbox down. It was supposed to be done transparently, and that did not happen. It was not like we did it on our own; we had support set it up for us. The proactive support help us with the set up.

We have no issues with scalability. We have been scaling up.

Support was good. They keep wanting us to always upgrade. However, with this failure that we had, it has made us nervous moving forward.

We had HPE EVAs. Then, we had to move away from EVAs, and the 3PARs were the next ones in the line.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It took a couple of days.

We had HPE support help us. 

We have seen ROI with the product. Overall, the 3PAR has been performing very well.

We looked a EMC before Dell purchased them. Cost is what made us decide on HPE, plus we had a relationship with HPE. We have always been a big HPE shop. Otherwise, the products were apples to apples.

Evaluate your needs. Prepare a cost comparison comparing it to what your needs are. Sometimes, you may not need a 3PAR if you are looking for secondary storage. You may want to go with Nimble. You need to look at what your requirements are, then make your determination that way.

Most important criteria for selecting a vendor: 

1. Price
2. Best of breed
3. Reliability.

I found it easy to deploy and simple to configure the storage.

We have had no problems so far.

One of the points that moved us towards 3PAR was we wanted to escalate it in a very high way.

We have not used tech support often, but when we have, they have been clear with us.

We have already some IBM storage, but we are not happy with it. After checking out other models, we decided to work with 3PAR. Not only because we are familiar with HPE, but also the features combined well with our services.

The initial setup was easy. However, we get stuck on preconditions. We were not aware of some of the preconditions. For example, the need for a different, separate IP network for replication. We had to rethink how we were going to implement it.

We are using 3PAR for production workloads, processing insurance policies and claims, file shares, and storage.

It has been performing well so far. We have had a few hiccups on the configuration side, but we have been working with HPE on them. For the most part, the product has been pretty seamless.

It had our organization start to think like an actual organization. A lot of stuff came out where the management of our workloads has improved dramatically.

We have gotten out of the mindset of physical is better; virtualization has taken hold and is starting to take off. We are going through the process of consolidation to 100% virtual. It has been incremental growth over a short period of time.

I live in Houston, so disaster recovery (DR) is very important, and the site-to-site replication is huge. I love that feature. We have our backups set up to replicate between two sites, then we also have our storage set up to replicate between two sites. The next piece would probably be to stack on a synergy appliance and be able to get our compute layer replicated between the two sites as well, which would round out that whole DR scenario.

What appeals to me is having mobile functionality. There is a vendor portal for 3PAR for whatever you want to purchase. I would like to see something from an administrator's standpoint, as opposed to having to go to a web browser, where you get a ping on your phone which says, "Your license is coming up for renewal," or, "You have a drive that is bad," in conjunction with stuff, such as InfoSight.

This is something which provides value back to me, because then I am not having to constantly babysit my vendors and say, "When do I have renewals coming due?" It is tough to get vendors who engage with you on that level. They go back and say, "Just a heads up, but these are what are coming due." Maybe they can backfill that with a mobile app.

My admins like having this functionality and direct integration, where it is like, "I need to do this, this, and this." If they could do it all from their phone that would be better. Though, sometimes it is tough, because of tiny phones, and all there is to use is a web browser. It can be hard to read on a smaller screen. If it is a mobile app, maybe it could be finessed into something where basic tasks could be done.

After we got past all the hiccups with the conditional configuration, the stability has been rock solid. I like the simplicity of it. We do not have to fidget with it a whole lot once we have it set up correctly. It has been stable and performs well, so I have no complaints whatsoever.

Scalability is incredible. We have a single server cabinet today, but we can grow it to as many cabinets as we need.

We go through a third party. We did not use HPE tech support unless we need to escalate an issue.

Sadly, the support from HPE has not been all that great. It is tough to get a tech out or get a response from some of the techs that we have.

I was not involved in the initial setup. When I came onboard, the product was already in the environment. 

We have already seen ROI. We have had it in the environment for about three months. It has been absolutely tremendous. Workloads have improved in performance. We do not have a lot of the same struggles that we used to.

It is stable. It does what its supposed to. You can feed it compute and storage as you need to. Whereas with our standard DL380 and ML350 servers, once you get to a certain point, that is as big as you can get. With this product, you can throw another shelf of storage or blade at it and grow it as much as you need to. 

As our workloads have increased, we have been able to finesse those into a good size to where they are valuable for us.

We had to go back and purchase iLO licenses and brocade switches for the flex fabric to have a complete solution.

Our organization looked at NetApp and Pure Storage. Pure Storage was just too expensive. NetApp was good, but they did not have anybody familiar with the NetApp configuration.

Our biggest requirement was ease of use. HPE seemed to have all the pieces that we needed, and it easy enough to get somebody trained up on how to manage it.

Understand your needs first. If you do not have a need for a highly technical solution, or you have workloads which are not high-performing. 3PAR is a perfect fit.

Understand your environment. Know what you are getting into. Research the different tools which are out there. Make sure that it is a good fit. It is nice to have the high performance stuff, but if you do not have high performance workloads, keep it simple and 3PAR is simple for us.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:  Our biggest requirement was ease of use. Scalability was another. We can scale it up pretty much as big as we need to. Those were the two biggest criteria.

Our customers use it for primary SAN storage. They have multiple business needs for their enterprise-class business, e.g., for high-end data processing, oil, and natural gas. We also have media customers, who are trying to use it. The businesses are predominantly all verticals who use it.

The performance is awesome. It is one of the best storage products comparatively to like size competitors. I am a big fan of 3PAR.

It is about the availability and predictably. The performance is also good. 

It is a rugged, performance system; it is trouble-free and a workhorse. We have a c7000, which with 3PAR makes a great combination for any workload.

The following need to be improved:

• The ability to contact the correct HPE resource to give you the right product. 
• We had to undergo at least two or three iterations before we finalized a product which fit. This took time.
• The availability of technical resources within HPE is becoming a challenge due to availability. They are possibly all busy, or maybe at the headquarters less. I don't know the reason, but this happens every time we have to burn the midnight oil to get some solution out and running.
• 3PAR needs to keep on increasing its capacity.
• It needs more array support.
• It needs to be more data-driven. 

It is stable.

We have to go through the non-rolling part of it, and that takes time. We are waiting from HPE to hear (possibly next year) how better InfoSight will be coming into the picture. We are looking for more developments on that front.

So far, technical support has been good. However, we use our own in-house expertise to resolve issues.

We help our customers decide on purchasing new solutions. This is our process:

1. We have a headroom of about 20 to 30 percentage depending on the customer's business. The visibility for the next year on the future annual growth. 
2. Once we hit a headroom of about 60 percentage, we talk to the customer and tell them that they are up for either scalability, compression, or dedupe for their data. 
3. When the capacity hits about 80 percentage, then we buy a new product and app.

Earlier, it used to be complex. Now, we have our own skill set, which has made the installation easier. From the time we gather all the necessary data, it takes about a week (five business days) to set it up and have it running.

We do the system integration for our customers.

Not all of them see ROI, because there is definitely good competition available from NetApp and Hitachi. When you look at the ROI, those are the other two organizations who are making inroads. In terms of product performance, 3PAR is really good.

Cost-wise, it is a little bit on the higher side, but it is an awesome product. 

Other competitors in this marketplace are Dell EMC, NetApp, and Hitachi. These vendors are very competitive in terms of pricing.

Product-wise, it is good. In terms of cost, I will leave the choice to them.

Most important criteria that our customers select a vendor:

• Supportability
• Scalability
• Financing.

The main reason that our customers choose 3PAR is because of price.