IBM FlashSystem Reviews

I work for a food manufacturer, and we use FlashSystem to provide always-on, high-availability data storage. It's an active-active configuration where storage data is actively synced between two sites. 

FlashSystem offers proven technology in a compact package. 

IBM could do more marketing and improve brand awareness. I had never heard of this product until a colleague told me about it. FlashSystem could add a few features, but it would probably increase the price. For example, Pure Storage offers instant snapshotting and partitioning. That would be nice to have, but I think the cost would go up. 

I have used FlashSystem for about a year.

I rate FlashSystem nine out of 10 for stability. 

FlashSystem is scalable, but you need to pay to expand it. We are at around 50 percent capacity, and we can increase that by purchasing more disks. It's still possible to scale beyond that, but it will be more expensive because I need to buy storage boxes. 

A partner provides us with technical support, and we have a service agreement with them. Our partner uses IBM support, so they have a relationship with the vendor. I rate them nine out of 10. 

We previously used Dell VPLEX. FlashSystem is a lot cheaper and less complex. VPLEX is more of a black box, so you don't know what the system is doing. FlashSystem gives you more control. 

Deploying FlashSystem is straightforward. We were using Dell VPLEX, which was complicated. Now, we have three hosts in each of our two server rooms plus four or five switches and two storage boxes. It's highly compact and straightforward. We can finish the deployment in a week. 

It's hard to quantify the return on investment, but FlashSystem is reliable and doesn't create a lot of extra work. We wasted some hours with the old solution because it was slow. 

I rate FlashSystem seven out of 10 for affordability. It's a great value for the price. 

I rate IBM FlashSystem nine out of 10. It's the best active-active solution for the money. I recommend finding a partner who has expertise in the product. Don't use a team that only installed the product once.

I provide IBM FlashSystem to my customers and host it on the GBM private cloud, to give them the best services. I am working on a project to replace an HP Primera with an IBM FlashSystem 5200. This solution consists of two boxes connected with the remote mirroring feature of the FlashSystem. Each box has about 30 terabytes of storage and is replicated using a flash copy. The boxes are connected to a Power System running AIX, and I have implemented the EC tier with multiple layers of disk including MV, SST, and rotational disk. Additionally, I have set up Spectrum Protect to make backups to the TS 4300 tape. This project is currently being implemented and should be completed within the next month.

At the FlashSystem level, customers are especially fond of multi-tier and distributed rate systems, particularly the dynamic rate six arrays. They appreciate the extra layer of protection this provides, as well as the Easy Tier feature which is analogous to IBM’s FlashCopy. Customers find the FlashCopy feature highly beneficial, and the feature often comes up in conversations.

Customers are delighted with the new version of IBM's Virtualize system because it allows them to easily expand arrays with a single disk, something that was not possible in the past. They appreciate the added convenience of being able to incorporate multiple items indistinctly into the array.

Our customers have raised concerns about the limitations of the FlashSystem 5200 and 7300, which only offer a 32-gigabyte connection. This presents an issue for customers whose other infrastructure, such as old HBA cards, is limited to an eight-gigabyte connection. To maintain the recommended N minus one connection, the customer must use the 32-gigabyte connection, which is not ideal. To provide more flexibility, our customers would prefer to have a 16-gigabyte connection on these small boxes. The customer was initially unhappy with the situation because they had to replace all of the eight-gigabyte connections in their sixteen servers in order to migrate to a new storage system. Furthermore, to remain competitive, the customer had to be given the machines for free. While the customer accepted this, it was still a displeasing and uncomfortable experience for them. However, the machines were eventually sold and installed, leading to a satisfactory outcome. Despite this, the customer was still left with a feeling of dissatisfaction from the negotiation.

I have been using the solution for several years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten. The latest versions of Virtualize, from 8.5 and above, are highly reliable. I have not had any complaints from customers about them.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten. This solution is highly scalable, allowing for both side-by-side placement and clustering. This makes it an ideal option for me due to its scalability.

My technician told me that the initial setup of this machine is much faster and easier than with previous versions, and they were very pleased with it. Though I haven't experienced it myself, I understand the positive experience it has provided.

For example, with the small model, we can configure the machine to enable us to access the SAN. This includes configuring the worldwide name and getting familiar with the SAN experience. It typically takes around three to four hours to set up boxes in the morning, depending on the size of the array and any specific configurations that the customer wants. For smaller models, this is usually the case. For larger models, the setup time may vary but is estimated to take no more than four hours for arrays up to 30 terabytes. 

For deployment on the small machine, one to two people are typically required, as it is necessary to have two people to rack the machine. For larger machines, three people are usually used for racking and setup. The large machines are the DS, the Enterprise, and the 7300.

I'd rate the basic licensing and the Virtualize software a ten out of ten, and the extra Spectrum and other an eight out of ten. However, if we combine the basic and advanced licensing, I'd give a score of eight out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten because of the solution's flexibility, scalability, and great prices. Last year's performance was remarkable, and I expect the same this year. IBM FlashSystem truly exceeded my expectations.

I suggest using the ESS for planning and ensuring a thorough conversation with the customer about their desired outcome. Proper planning is essential for successful implementation; if the planning isn't done well, it can lead to having to redo the work. My advice is to plan carefully and talk to the customer to make sure we understand exactly what they need and how to deliver it.

Our primary use case for this solution is managing and supporting our workloads currently running on IBM FlashSystem. Additionally, we use it to run our ERPs.

We like how straightforward the IBM system is and the technical team's support.

IBM FlashSystems is lagging in optimizing storage technologies, which can be improved. For example, deduplication with Dell EMC and their storages are far ahead of the curve regarding data storage deduplication. Deduplication is when you remove all the data duplicates from your system and save more data in a smaller physical space. If there are any duplications in the entire storage, they should be removed, and data can be saved. There are two types of deduplication, inline and post-save deduplication. Inline refers to the data travelling from the system to the storage to be stored. The system removes the duplicated part and then stores it to save space. Another kind is that you store the data first and then remove the duplications, so you will need a larger area to read and write. The inline deduplication needs to have global deduplication enabled.

We have been using this solution for five years.

The solution is stable and has no issues.

The solution is scalable and has varying degrees of scalability. For example, if you have to buy a port and initial or entry-level storage, it can scale up to a certain level. After that, you'll have to change the box. If you need a forklift to pick up and bring in a new device regarding scalability, we usually plan for three to four years because technology changes fast. Hence, with five years of scalability, you will have no issues scaling that product to a certain level. 

I rate customer service and support ten out of ten.

Positive

IBM storages are straightforward. The only issue is the higher-end machines of the V9000 storage systems. There are two ways storage can be configured, and if you have multiple controllers in storage, you don't need to enable zoning between the two controllers. However, for IBM V9000 and above models, the controllers are also zoned through your zoning system. I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten.

We have no issues with the price as it is very competitive. So, if you want to buy high-end IBM storage, HP would go higher than IBM, so if it's a million-dollar storage and you have around 150 terabytes of hybrid or all-flash storage that you deploy, then it costs approximately 1.7 million dollars. This solution is the second most expensive in the market.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. The solution is good, but variable-length deduplication and global deduplication can be included.

Our company uses the solution for central storage. Every person in our company is served by and accesses the solution. 

We also resell the solution to small business customers.  

The solution is very easy to configure and use. 

The solution's pricing is a bit high. 

I have been using the solution for eight years. 

The solution is very stable so stability is rated a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable so scalability is rated an eight out of ten. 

Technical support is great so is rated a ten out of ten. 

Positive

We sell the solution to customers who handle their own setups. 

The price is a little bit high so is rated a six out of ten. There is always room for improvement on the solution's price. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a ten out of ten. 

The Flash core models offer amazing performance.

The basic setup can be challenging when it comes to certain IP addresses and the configuration of the IP. You have to go in to different menus to makes changes and ensure it is stable.

Ina future release, we would like to have a better way to install and to configure FlashSystem.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten for stability. I have experienced one problem and that was solved by EBM. It was for a FS 5,200. I had to connect to an IBM i system without some switches. I was the second or third customer who did it, worldwide. They had to make a special patch for it.

This is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the technical support for this solution a three out of five. 

Neutral

I would rate the pricing of this solution a four out of five. 

We considered Dell PowerStore. From a capability and technology point of view, both solutions are comparable. However, from a price perspective, IBM is 30% cheaper.

I would definitely recommend this solution to other users. It is suitable for many sizes of business due to the options they offer. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten as it offers great performance and stability. 

IBM FlashSystem is used for performance systems.

IBM FlashSystem has improved the way the organizations of my customers function.

The most crucial feature of IBM FlashSystem is compression.

The only issue my team faced was transferring the data from the old system to IBM FlashSystem, which is an area for improvement in the solution.

I've been dealing with IBM FlashSystem for four years.

IBM FlashSystem is one hundred percent stable. My customers didn't encounter any failures, so it's good.

IBM FlashSystem is scalable, but it depends on what you're selling. You'll have scalability issues if you sell it as a complete system with maximum capacity. I didn't sell the entire system, so it can be upgraded if the customer needs more capacity.

I haven't contacted the technical support for IBM FlashSystem.

I sold other solutions apart from IBM FlashSystem, but the price for IBM FlashSystem was better.

Two of my customers preferred IBM FlashSystem, and the third customer liked Hitachi, but Hitachi was more expensive, so that customer went with IBM FlashSystem.

The implementation of IBM FlashSystem was straightforward. It will take less than two hours to implement if it's just a small system.

One engineer from my company and one engineer from the customer side took care of the deployment of IBM FlashSystem.

My customers got the IBM FlashSystem bundle offer. It was a one-time purchase for three years of service. The price would depend on the storage size and could reach between $25,000 to $55,000.

My company sells IBM FlashSystem to customers. I'm a salesperson.

My company sold six IBM FlashSystem to three customers. One was large-scale, while the other two were small-scale. The customers use the solution on production and deal sites. The capacity of my customers is sufficient at the moment, so there's no plan to increase the usage of IBM FlashSystem.

I'd tell people looking into implementing IBM FlashSystem that installing and managing it is straightforward. The solution also has excellent performance.

My rating for IBM FlashSystem is nine out of ten.

My company has a partnership with IBM.

Our entire company uses the solution for block storage. The solution is easily administered and maintained by four technicians. 

The solution has a very compact physical footprint that is high performance and easy to administer.

The solution allows for easy migrations from previous products or vendors via its embedded storage virtualization function.

The solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel. This is magnitudes lower than competing products. 

The 8.5 release for the 7300 and 9500 Flash Systems no longer allows IO group migrations. The replacement volume mobility is not as seamless as IO group migrations.

The Kubernetes CSI driver and the open-stack cinder driver still rely on SSH instead of native APIs for configuration changes. This reduces the limit of outstanding configuration changes that can be submitted to storage in bulk. 

The solution has not yet adopted Swordfish APIs and its SMI-S APIs are legacy and depreciated. Swordfish's are vendor-independent APIs made by the Storage Industry Association that allow you to manage storage no matter your vendor. These new generation APIs were released after ten years but IBM has not yet jumped on board. With a multi-vendor environment like ours, implementations are easier with universal APIs. 

Redhat Enterprise Linux clones such as CentOS, AlmaLinux, or Rocky Linux are not supported. All are binary compatible and should be supported because they are fundamentally the same product with different branding. 

It would be helpful to have a public page listing the minimum supported firmware levels for HBAs from different vendors. We have run into bugs with fiber channel cards that were solved with firmware updates. It was a laborious process to cross-reference vendor information so it would be helpful for IBM to provide recommended baselines for firmware. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is scalable within reason. We lease it based on a four-year forecast and then return it when the lease term ends. The solution can scale up a bit but we haven't really changed configurations during our lease terms. 

Technical support is very proactive and we receive alerts when they are visiting the data center or asking for permission to change a part. We are alerted to part failures before we even have a chance to find them in logs. 

I rate technical support a ten out of ten. 

Positive

The setup is quite straightforward and easy. 

The rack mount took thirty minutes because we had to cable the device. Deployment took about ten minutes. 

I implemented the solution because it is an easy product to set up. It is a pleasure to occasionally get out of the office and assist the data center. 

Previously, integrators helped with installations but weren't utilized much. 

The pricing is competitive in our country. In some countries, IBM is the most expensive vendor but that is not the case for us. 

We also negotiated a 60% discount directly with IBM because we are the largest consumer of enterprise hardware in the country. 

Each solution has its pluses and minuses. Pure, Dell EMC, and all other products have room for improvement. 

IBM is a good vendor with an excellent product, but the software side of the company still needs improvement. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. All top-tier solutions have room for improvement so I never rate them higher than a seven. 

We used the solution exclusively for block storage. Over time, it added compression features and now even NVMe. 

It's perfectly suited for an on-premise solution or for providing a base for cloud solutions, VMware workloads, IBM i-series, IBM AIX, IBM Power, Linux, and Windows compute. In other words, the complete server stack. It is something others actually can't offer. All of this can be operated from within the same solution. 

It definitely has a strong plus in environments where you actually have such different server solutions in place.

It's a really reliable, powerful platform. It's a mature product. It's like a BMW that evolves consistently. 

There is no need to change or buy another company's solution. It came with storage virtualization and options to move/migrate volumes around and migrates easily even before you actually have svMotion on VMware. 

It can be stretched. There is a Site Recovery Adapter. It has backup integration using flash copies. You can build a disaster recovery solution around it. IBM has its famous Redbooks where you can enter in the best practices. You name it, they've got it!

It offers separate IO Modules for connectivity additions, for compression to offload the CPU. 

It offers storage virtualization to ease migrations. You can build storage clusters and migrate data and easily configure partner relationships. 

The solution offers excellent performance! Flashcopies come in handy with backup solution integrations. The site recovery adapter for VMware Site recovery manager integration is great. Everything is working like a charm. 

I've used it in a banking environment in combination with VMware Site Recovery Manager and Site Recovery Adapter (SRA) - a wonderful combination. It saves you headaches building a recovery plan. Most of all, it works.

IBM's solution has come a long way and has had different milestones/features have been introduced. I would position the 7200 in the upper midrange class as it has lots of features - more than, for example, EMC Unity/VNXe. It doesn't lack anything, really. One could argue that NAS or S3 is not available to it, but I prefer other types of storage optimised for that job.

It is slightly more expensive, however, it all depends on your supplier. Licenses are volume-based. Larger companies with more TB usually are better off as the price per TB decreases the bigger you go. I would definitely recommend this platform!

I've known the predecessors of the IBM Flashsystem, being the Storwize 7200 (Gen 1 to 3) and SVC Front End Servers, from the time they were running on code 6.2 way back in 2011.

We have never ever had an incident with it making the infra go on its knees, nor did we have any datacorruption ever.

All storage solutions have bugs and all have their correctives that might not address an issue on the first occurance or under all circumstances. When the system is stressed and under some specific (nonetheless rare) conditions , the developped code might trigger a reboot of a controller node  to avoid data corruption. A system with 2 controllers is resilient enough on its own and a reboot of a node to prevent e.g. cache merge problems or alike is not harmfull.

To me, the need to evict a controller node and warm boot it is actually intentionally a safety precaution that avoids data corruption, something we all want to stay out as much as possible. It's as reliable as any other product in that respect. All solutions that I know off like DELL EMC Unity, Fujitsue DX-series or 3PAR Storeserv respond in the same manner to avoid datacorruption. I've seen it the most on the SVC (code 7.1/7.2 around 2012/2013  , but not on the  Storewize v7000 Gen1 to Gen2+ solutions, though I have to admit they all had about 40 to 50% of the load of the SVC.

You can build clusters with it and IO Groups.

IBM is able to deliver a support organization with well-trained people. IBM's redpieces/papers and solutions designs are published and offer real references. You can develop your own skills and become an expert or fallback on IBM Supreme Support if you feel less comfortable. 

Positive

We used IBM FastT/DS Storage (LSI Logic) with/without IBM SVC and IBM v7000 Gen1/Gen2/Gen3, shifting from legacy/traditional storage to storage virtualization.

It's quite intuitive. I always enjoyed that, whatever operation you initiated on its Webvinterface, it generated the command, and you actually see which command is being executed. I love it! It surely helps you get acquainted with the product. The setup with many modules and ports requires some design, as on any midrange solution. You get a nice template to initiate it and off you go.

I've done it myself after all the experience I've had. 

At the end of the lifecycle, the migrations and options you have mean that it doesn't require several storage solutions if you have mixed server solutions like Mainframe, i-Series, AIX, IBM PowerPC, VMware, Desktop Virtualisation, et cetera.

Also, the superb integration with VMware SRM and its Site Recovery Adapter makes it a seamless solution to make your infra resilient.

It's not as expensive as HPE Storeserv, however, it is more expensive than Netapp FAS or Dell Compellent. 

We looked at the Netapp FAS all-flash series, Dell Compellent, HPE StoreServ (7200/7400, 8200/8400, and 10500), and Dell EMC VNXe/Unity

It's a more complete solution and really up to mixed infrastructure and resiliency and has a lot to offer on scalability too

We are using IBM FlashSystem for data storage at the hospital I work at.

IBM FlashSystem has benefited our organization because we can mix solid-state drives with spinning drives.

IBM FlashSystem is a flexible solution with plenty of features.

I have been using IBM FlashSystem for approximately one year.

The solution is stable and has good performance.

IBM FlashSystem is highly scalable.

We have approximately 5,000 people using the solution. We plan to continue using this solution in the future.

The support could improve by allowing you to speak to someone when you call rather than them calling you back. However, once we do have contact with one of their technicians they are excellent.

We previously used HPE and we are slowly moving towards having them switched with IBMFlashSystem. We have found the IBM FlashSystem to be more flexible.

The installation was a moderate level of difficulty and it took approximately one week.

We do the implementation and maintenance of the solution using our in-house team.

The cost of the IBM FlashSystem is lower than the HPE solution.

IBM FlashSystem provides a very good value.

I rate IBM FlashSystem a nine out of ten.

IBM FlashSystem is the best solution for storage virtualization. 

The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool. 

I have been using the solution for 15 years. 

IBM FlashSystem is scalable. 

IBM FlashSystem's deployment is easy. You can manage everything from the GUI. IBM provides replacement and spare parts. 

IBM FlashSystem offers easy management and durability. I rate it an eight point five out of ten.