IBM FlashSystem Reviews

It is block storage. We basically use it for the storage units.

The compression and deduplication features are the most valuable. 

They can improve its initial configuration. The initial configuration is currently very difficult. There are multiple choices or alternative ways to configure based on the use case and what you are targeting out of the device, that is, more capacity or more performance. These multiple alternatives cause a lot of confusion.

They should increase the processing part of the nodes. Currently, you can cluster up to eight nodes. From my experience and the workload that I am facing in my environment currently, I would like to see either a bigger or stronger node or a larger number of nodes that can be clustered together. We formally communicated to them that we need to see either this or that, and they are working on something.

I have been using this solution for 14 to 15 months.

If you set it up correctly, it is very stable. After we configured it correctly, we didn't have any issues. I didn't have any issues after the first week of the configuration.

We haven't scaled it yet, but based on the documentation and specification, it is actually scalable.

I have been in touch with IBM support, and I did it a lot. Normally, they respond within an acceptable time with a sufficiently detailed answer. Around 90% of the time, you will get the answer straight back. In some rare cases, you need to ask them more. You send them a mail asking to clarify something or get more details about how to do a specific task, but normally, they provide a satisfactory answer.

We are a very large bank, and we have a lot of storage devices from multiple vendors. We have devices from Dell EMC, NetApp, and Pure Storage. Every product has its advantages and disadvantages. 

If you are targeting functionality, we get the most functionality from IBM FlashSystem, and then from Pure Storage, and then from Dell EMC boxes. If you are targeting performance, then Dell EMC will come first, then IBM FlashSystem, and then Pure Storage. If you are targeting compression deduplication that will generate more capacity, then Pure Storage will come at number one, IBM FlashSystem will come at number two, and Dell EMC will come at number three.

Its initial configuration is difficult. We went through the books and manuals, but we didn't do it correctly. Therefore, we had to start again from scratch. It took two or three attempts to do it correctly. 

We implemented it on our own. My team is managing all of the storage devices that we have, and there are six of us. IBM is responsible for its maintenance.

Among IBM, Dell EMC, and Pure Storage, IBM is the cheapest. The price is also based on our location, the size of our entity, and our regular annual purchases from them. We are a very big IBM customer, so we normally get very high discounts. We are not a big customer of Pure Storage. We don't buy that much from Pure Storage per year.

Everything is included in the price. There is no extra license for different functions.

I would advise others to get somebody to do it for you. Don't do it yourself, or read the book carefully. Our implementation was complicated, so we ended up doing it multiple times. Other colleagues I know in other institutes have much smaller systems than the one we bought. They implemented it in four hours. So, for complex and big implementations, either get an expert to do it for you or read the documentation multiple times before you start, which we didn't.

I would rate IBM FlashSystem an eight out of ten.

Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. 

It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good.

They can include Amazon file system S3 protocol in the upcoming releases. It is a cloud file system. IBM FlashSystem doesn't have this feature in the box for high-end or mid-range. We have got requests for this from customers because we need to use S3 for EDI application storage. 

At the beginning of every year, IBM releases firmware. When I find any bugs in the firmware during the year, I am unable to find any information from IBM regarding the bug. I need to open a ticket, and the IBM engineering team makes a patch only for me. This patch is not public. By creating a customized patch for a client, they don't really solve the issue for everyone. If multiple users have the same bug, IBM should upload the patch on the official website so that we can download it.

IBM FlashSystem has a monitoring tool in the box, but it is not advanced. I need a more advanced tool for more advanced equations and monitoring. All top three storage vendors, that is, EMC, IBM, and Pure Storage, don't have a powerful monitoring tool. To monitor our box to show the statistics for I/Os and latency, I need to pay for extra software. The built-in monitoring storage is not mature enough to handle all requests and generate all reports that I need.

They can include the functionality to stretch a cluster natively without using any additional boxes. In addition, there are some features that EMC has integrated with the box. These features are not available in IBM FlashSystem.

I have been using this solution for six years.

It is stable. 

It is scalable. All projects in my company use the IBM FlashSystem. I am working on high-end storage, not mid-range. I can scale out or scale up. IBM has introduced FlashSystem 9200 to the market in which I can scale SAS disk, NVMe disk, and SSCM disk. I have three options on one box, which are not available with EMC or Pure Storage.

You can also scale out storage in EMC. In Pure Storage, there are issues in scaling. Pure Storage has different boxes like X70, X90, X50, and if I need to scale or upgrade the box, I need to change our controllers. Every Pure Storage box has limited capacity, whereas, for IBM storage, the capacity of the box is not limited.

The response of technical support is good.

I have used NetApp storage and EMC storage. NetApp storage is very poor and bad. EMC is a good competitor of IBM in the market now, and in terms of the number of customers, EMC is number one. User Interface is the main big difference between IBM and EMC. IBM FlashSystem is very easy and friendly comparatively. EMC is very complicated. 

EMC is also closed, whereas IBM FlashSystem is very open. It provides a lot of communication over the internet for administrating and implementing the storage. I am working on a customer project that has EMC storage, and the customer daily complains regarding EMC Unity or XtremIO.

IBM is integrated with the different operating systems by a native operating system multipath. EMC works with PowerPath multipath. Until recently, EMC didn't have these features in the box, and you had to pay for a multipath license. In new technology and operating system versions of EMC, a separate multipath license is not required.

The initial setup was very easy.

I implemented it. I have experience of ten years in implementing IBM storage. It is very easy to implement. 

The integration is already included in the license cost of IBM FlashSystem. The integration is very easy. You get the IBM storage core with all software, firmware, and upgrades. EMC provides the features in the box, but they are not free for customers. There is a licensing cost for features.

We have yearly licensing, but IBM has also provided a new option where you pay as you go. They provide a big box, and I pay, for example, for 10 terabytes. If I exceed 10 terabytes, IBM will charge for the new storage after 10 terabytes. It is a good opportunity in the market for using the storage as a cloud and paying as you go. 

I work only on high-end storage. Before recommending a solution, I need to know about the workload, that is, application workload, backup workload, and database workload. IBM provides a free workload script that can be applied to any environment, such as Windows, Unix, or Linux. I need to see the I/O performance, and after which, I can provide the best solution for a customer from Pure Storage, EMC, or IBM. 

I would rate IBM FlashSystem a nine out of ten.

The IBM FlashSystem is the primary storage for files and data in our organization.

The most valuable features are deduplication and compression, which together, enable you to have more space.

Performance is a major advantage of this storage.

When you add more flash drives or more NVMe, that is the bottleneck or shortcoming with this type of storage. When you fill the first enclosure, you won't be able to add more NVMe until you add more SAS drives.

The security features can be improved such that the encryption does not affect performance in any way.

I have been using IBM FlashSystem for about four years.

The stability is very good.

We have approximately 1,500 people who are directly or indirectly accessing the data that is residing on this storage.

The technical support is pretty good, especially the local team in Pakistan. Normally, the response time is very good.

This is the first flash storage system that we have used. Prior to that, we were using a hybrid Dell EMC storage.

The initial setup is not very difficult. I would say that it is similar to the way other storage systems are set up. I believe that it took one week for our deployment, which included testing.

We have three administrators who take care of the different applications and data that are hosted on this storage. We don't perform maintenance on a daily basis. We may extract some stats for the performance and for evaluating capability. However, when it comes to maintenance, we probably work on it once or twice a month.

Before purchasing this product, I recommend that everyone should do a PoC because there are multiple flash drive systems now available. All storage vendors are now making flash drives because it is a new technology that replaces existing hybrid systems. I would suggest doing some analysis and some R&D because Huawei, for example, is doing well. EMC is also top of the line, with IBM. There are slight differences in features, however, so it is important to do a comparison before making any decision.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is virtualization.

The most valuable feature of the solution is compression.

The marketing could be improved. Additionally, awareness in the marketplace could be improved.

We have been using the solution since it was introduced and currently use the latest version.

The solution is stable. I rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable, and approximately 100 clients are utilizing it. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support, but it sometimes takes a while to resolve an issue. I rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward and took three days. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We implemented it with a vendor team and in-house staff.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but its marketing awareness can be improved.

It is useful for SAP, landscape or banking systems. The product system is good.

The storage system is one of the best in the world.

The setup could be improved.

We have used this solution for 12 years and are using versions 5200, 5300 and 9000.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable. We have more than 12 customers using IBM FlashSystem in my country.

I am satisfied because we have global technical support and other options. In addition, IBM has two specialized service centers based on the business partners' platform.

The initial setup is complex, and the deployment depends on the project. It could take two hours or two or three months. We usually work with integrators working with companies, service and business partners.

Our clients pay for software licenses or other advanced licenses they need, such as Metro Cluster. The licenses are usually annual.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend this solution to others.

We use IBM FlashSystem with our VMware environment, however, there are times when we need to connect centers or just servers.

Data deduplication is one of the most valuable features of this solution. 

The Fibre Channel connection is excellent, as well as the extremely fast performance.

There should be more licenses included in the standard price.

Additional licenses might be added for the fundamental licenses, such as those for copying and flash copies.

I have been dealing with IBM FlashSystem since it has become available.

I am a reseller. We sell 5,025,5,100, and 5,200, versions.

IBM FlashSystem is quite stable. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

IBM FlashSystem is scalable.

There isn't a lot of software linked to that IBM software.

It is very easy to scale.

It depends on the client's needs because there are small-sized companies with 50 customers to begin with and such. And it is occasionally used. I would say 220 or more are there for the users.

External support is sufficient to keep this solution functional.

The technical assistance is excellent, which is why I recommend this solution to my clients.

 I would rate the technical support a five out of five.

Positive

We have just purchased Lenovo FlashSystem this week for our clients.

I worked with Storage-Tech, IBM Sharks, EMC Clariion, and other similar products.

The initial setup is simple.

Network with your coding laptop or something similar then set up the network. It's not complicated, it's quite easy.

If five is a good price and one is a high price, I would rate the price a two or three out of five.

I was looking into the differences between Lenovo and I went to some other sites to check. I looked at YouTube, but there isn't much but there is something.

After the research, in my opinion, IBM FlashSystem is better than Lenovo.

I would rate IBM FlashSystem an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for application and database coding.

This solution is really user friendly. It also offers good performance and is highly reliable. 

This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution.

We switched to using IBM because we wanted an AI based solution. 

The entire hardware implementation was done by IBM.

I would recommend this solution to others because it is reliable, high performing and user friendly.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

I find almost all the IBM FlashSystem features beneficial. The performance and the minimum latency IBM FlashSystem provide to the applications are good.  Parsing is the most valuable feature inside IBM Spectrum Virtualize software, which allows us to virtualize any third-party storage for IBM or non-IBM systems. A lot of features like replication/copy snapshots. All of them are very important and amazing, and we have benefited from them with most of the applications.

The generic functionality of IBM FlashSystem, IBM always dismisses using file share or sharing protocols inside their storage hardware, and they only focus on the block-level storage.

I have been using IBM FlashSystem for 10 years.

IBM FlashSystem is a stable solution.

I have found IBM FlashSystem to be scalable. However, with a specific type of FlashSystems scalability is limited. 

The local support for IBM FlashSystem is very weak. Most of the customers are suffering from the IBM support here inside Egypt.

The initial setup is easy. It is not complex at all.

I price of IBM FlashSystem is reasonable and competitive.

We provide this solution to many customers.

I rate IBM FlashSystem an eight out of ten.