IBM Spectrum Virtualize Reviews

The main reason for our utilizing the product: 

1. The abstraction flair and the abstraction layer. We had a mixture of different storage arrays, and the wonderful thing about SVC is is that it normalizes all it into a single driver. A single view that all hosts see simultaneously. 
2. The mobility that it gives us to move around to different performing storage arrays, depending on their load. 
3. The ease of the mobility, the flash copy product, and the copy services.

ADT acquires companies (and things), so we end up with odd hardware. We bring it behind the SVC and it allows us to migrate stuff off of it seamlessly. SVC can also cover up a host of defects of the underlying storage.

Dell Compellent, which maybe was good at one time, but is no longer ready for prime time, SVC made the Compellent look good. The other thing, because services are licensed at the SVC level, it does not matter what the underlying capabilities of the other storage is. 

The abstraction. Hands down, it is the top reason for having it. 

NBME support and support for a higher Fibre Channel lengths could be improved, but those are already on the roadmap.

Stability is rock solid. We have never had an outage.

We have gone through code updates, UPS battery replacements, and node failures. Nobody ever notices anything.

We have not hit any limits. At one time, we had 8 POWER Frames, almost 400 alt parls, LTO tape in zones, a bunch of Windows, and ESX host servers. So, it is more than adequate for our purposes.

Technical support is effective and helpful.

We were having some bottleneck issues with our DS8800, and it turned out that they had changed best practices on us. So, we involved technical support on the best way to migrate from intermingling hosts and storage to display them out into two separate aisle port groups.

We will do the initial setup on any storage array, but all the management is on the SVC. Therefore we get by with a much smaller staff, but not by design. It allows us to continue to do our jobs effectively. 

I personally am a scripter, I build my own tools. So, I have automated huge amounts of my job, which allows me to leverage the SVC and do the job of three people.

When we brought SVC into the environment, I could see what would be daunting for some people. However, it was not for me. I can script, so I was able to automate much of the process and copying everything back over. 

Anyone who is not very comfortable with command line and the ability to automate their own stuff should probably engage professional services to help them do the transition, at least the initial transition.

Do a proof of concept, if you are not comfortable jumping in, but do it. Look at it.

I love the SVC. I would recommend it.

Main criteria when selecting a vendor: extraction. It was to reduce the complexity of the drivers that we had to deal with. Because at the time we brought it in, we had SSA, DS8100s, Compellent, and a couple of weird little EMC boxes that someone had brought in on us. Therefore, they wanted the ability to move stuff around at will, and SVC was the perfect solution for this.

• Reducing our costs: We used to have all tier DS8 storage. Even though we had Spectrum Virtualize in front of almost all of that, we still had almost all DS8.
• We've been able to bring in multiple tiers, flash systems, and V7000s

• We can migrate that data, watch it with the tool, and know that the data is not on the right tier.

• We can migrate that data again, place it in the right tier, and reduce our overall cost.

The most valuable feature is probably data migration so we can bring in back-end systems and swap data out. Our end-users, and even our other system administrators, don't have any idea that we've moved storage around.

It's got full features, so we can compress volumes. We can do thin volumes and we can change them on the fly.

Nobody knows that we've migrated that data around. We can ship it off to our DR site. This is all under the hood of Spectrum Virtualize.

We don't have to worry about what type of block is underneath it at the time. It's all being done at that layer.

A feature that is already there, if I remember correctly, is encryption. I think it is coming out, or it is already there.

That is a key management piece. Right now, we're doing an encryption on the back-end flash systems on the V7000s. It's simple, with just a USB key into the controllers.

The integration would be an option that we would like, but I understand that's not how it's going to be implemented.

NPIV is also coming. I'm not exactly sure what benefit it will bring. Initially, that sounded like that was going to be kind of cool. Even though we can migrate data without our end users really knowing it, they do see a path failure, and NPIV would take care of that for us.

The feature that's kind of missing is getting us up to the point where we can help the application owners see where their data is at, understand it, and potentially help us breakout.

We've used easy tiered functions in the pools, so we're trying to help step that storage down. If they can get visibility somehow into that data, help us further break that down, or better tier and separate out their data, that would be helpful.

I know that VMWare has that function, where they are taking multiple tiers themselves and placing subsets of data, as opposed to whole blocks.

For the most part, stability has been really good. Like anything else, the more you use it, the more times you're going to run into a bug. We've certainly done that.

It seems like scalability is OK. I mean, it's kind of hard for us. We're on a four year refresh cycle. So we stay pretty current with the hardware itself. We are adding in things like compression accelerators, and now with the new SV1 nodes, more cache, and we are going to more adapters. Of course, we're always willing to split out workloads onto separate stacks. So it scales pretty well.

Support has been pretty responsive. Software is coming out all the time with PTFs to fix, so staying on top of that is important.

We've run into the seven three code. Specifically, we hit the cache performance bug. We were right on top of that and had to do another upgrade to clear that.

We've also had a bug with the fiber channel cards. Again, by the time we were implementing, it was a known issue. It was not anything that we've really had to wait on, but not something that we were aware of at the time of implementation.

Get a demo of it. If you haven't seen the product and you have not had somebody step you through all of the features and all the things that you can do with it, then I think it would be really tough to see where adding another set of controllers in front of your storage is benefiting you.

You might be thinking, that's just another hop and it's another delay in getting to my data. I think you will see the value of this solution once you:

• See it plugged in
• Understand what's going to come with being able to move, compress, and virtualize your data in one interface

• Are able to manage all the data there, and not worry about the back end-stuff
• Are able to carve up volumes very quickly to the end users

Integration with Spectrum control and a kind of self-service provisioning is good. It is something we're looking at turning over and then deciding about all the data migration that can happen in the back-end. We can look at that request, and then decide. Perhaps we didn't have enough information when we started, and then we can move it on the back-end. We don't have to worry about getting into the weeds, necessarily, from day one.

We have a lot of different customers, such as banks and retail customers. In banks, it is mainly used for open environment testing. We have some retail customers, and they use it mostly for their test environments. Retail customers also use the DS8000 for production, because it is a more robust platform.

It is performing well in most cases. The disk reliability is not that good, not as good as with some of these products.

Most of our customers run their solutions via on-premise instances.

The versatility is the main benefit. Since it virtualizes everything, they use it for so many different things. 

It is also good for them when we do upgrades, etc. When we add storage behind it, the product is also good for the customers because their customers do not notice that anything is happening due to the virtualization.

Its versatility, as it has a lot of advanced functions for a reasonable price.

We would like the right support and the ability to add disks concurrently to arrays. There are big arrays now, and if a customer wants add more disks to it, you have to have another array. Adding disks to existing arrays is one of the most demanded things from our customers.

The SVC port (virtualized port) is very stable, but the Storwize port is not so stable.

It is very scalable.

In the past, the technical support has been very good. However, lately, it has not been so good as they are moving the support to Bulgaria. We are really unhappy about this.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would recommend IBM Spectrum Virtualize.

Mainly, our customers are IBM friendly and have mostly IBM equipment.

Customers' most important criteria when selecting a vendor: cost.

To be able to seamlessly migrate storage sub-systems underneath Spectrum Virtualize.

Being able to migrate storage without impacting the client.

The ability to migrate between clusters, like between Spectrum Virtualize clusters, seamlessly.

Very good. Very stable.

Scalability needs some work in some areas. The number of volumes needs to be increased drastically.

Technical support is very good.

We were using Direct Attached DS8000 before and we switched for scalability.

It was pretty straightforward.

Don't go with EMC. Go with IBM. Go with this product. Absolutely. It's a very good product compared to the competitors.

Being able to move things around from one array to the other has been the biggest feature for us.

There's a little bit of performance benefit. The flexibility that we get from being able to have different vendors' storage arrays presented as one homogenous unit to our hosts has been the main benefit.

Currently, the newer features exceed our needs. What we really need is resiliency and stability in the features that are out there and do run.

We have been using the system for twelve years.

It's been pretty stable, but we've had some issues. I wouldn't say it's poor, but the resiliency has been less than what we expect from an enterprise class product.

It appears to us, over several decades, that quality control waxes and wanes. That's scary for us, because as a new system comes out and we install it, we really expect it to be an enterprise class product and not to have problems. We expect it all to be bullet-proof, and it hasn't been in our experience.

Scalability is limited, but it meets our needs.

Generally, technical support is good.

It's been a long time now, about twelve years. I forgot about previous solutions.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I'd tell them that it's a good product and they should implement it. They probably should not run the latest code and they should look very carefully at advanced features.

When selecting a vendor, honesty is one of the first things to consider, and then stability and resiliency of the products. Performance is nice, but the applications that I support need bullet-proof stuff behind it with no down time.

• The ability to use different storage products in the back-end
• Having only one code base for mirroring and all other enterprise features

When you use different storage vendors, you may not get what you want. With this solution, you can put these solutions under Spectrum Visualize and use them, because they will look the same in IBM storage.

I would like to see data obligation which I think is already on the road map.

We have been using this product for eight years.

Stability on our side is very good.

Scalability is also good. It could be improved, but we will see if they will improve it.

Technical support is sometimes good and sometimes it is low.

Eight years ago, we had a different product that was not very well designed. It is no longer on the market. It was LSI Storage, but we switched.

We had a business partner doing the setup for us, but it is complex. This is a special product. It's not a standard storage product, so you have to know a lot about your environment.

We evaluated FalconStor and DataCore. This was based on installing software somewhere on the server. This was software for storage from a very early version in 2008/2009. We don't trust them, so that's why we chose an appliance level from IBM.

When looking at vendors, we look at their ability to perform and give good support.

Difficult question. You have to look at your environment and what you need to do there. I think Spectrum Visualize is a very good product to address a lot of problems.

The simplicity of the product makes IBM Spectrum Virtualize a pleasure to use. With numerous islands of storage arrays, this allowed the company to effectively "pool" all the numerous storage arrays and encouraged a tiered storage approach. The speed at which snapshots can be created are impressive with clones copies taking longer due to the nature of a clone (VM) vs snapshot (copy of VM disk file). Google it. With all flash becoming the new standard, the IBM Spectrum Virtualize nodes boast an array (pardon the pun) of flash technology providing the performance where and when it is needed.

Where does one begin? Although the GUI from the XIV was used (in my view), IBM has polished and refined the GUI providing a pleasant and easy to navigate GUI experience. The IBM Spectrum Virtualize has gone from strength to strength but at the same time setting the bar for what's possible in the storage virtualization market. IBM have just recently released the new SV1 nodes which boasts integrated flash and processor power, thus providing far better response times overall.

Cheaper pricing and GUI should be developed in HTML5 as opposed to Java.

No issues at all.

IBM Spectrum Virtualize loves scalability.

Customer Service:

IBM service is good with no language challenges when speaking to call center agents from different countries and cultures.

Technical Support:

On a scale of one to five (one: terrible to five: excellent): four.

No previous competing products. The challenge was to consolidate islands of storage arrays.

The most challenging parts of the implementation were the initial cabling configuration. With many storage arrays needing cabling and multiple paths needing to be cabled using fibre optic LC cables, zoning also proved to add significant effort but this is to be expected and is a once-off exercise. Although regular commissioning/decommissioning of server/backup infrastructure is part of storage administration duties, the initial setup was far more intensive as an entire storage infrastructure needed to be redesigned. Once the hardware infrastructure was in place and the software configured to best practice (IBM implemented in order to ensure best practice was adhered to).

Combination of onsite and vendor team.

Vendor team was professional and well-skilled.

Not applicable.

Liaise with both the vendor and their partners. You'd be amazed at how much you can score.

No. Competitor products just did not offer the features we required.

HTML5, please.

It is easy to deploy and use. It's very calm. The GUI goes right across the entire platform.

I would like to see more information about the heat map. That would give us an easier view from an architect's standpoint in terms of:

• A better idea of where we have to put data
• What we have to build-in with virtualization
• The ability to grow it
• The ability to make it more scalable.

Stability has been good. Stability has been high, actually. We've had some minor issues, and IBM has been quick to fix those. I don't have any issues with the stability.

Scalability is good. And of course, it works across multiple, different technologies including flash and regular drives. Scalability is definitely good.

Technical support at IBM is actually not as great as it used to be. It seems like IBM has decreased the number of people who can support this environment. We find that locating someone who knows the product line, or more of that product line, is becoming limited.

I'm not the one who invested in this solution, but multiple clients have invested in it. There were business requirements from a technology standpoint, there was performance that they needed, and there were different degrees of availability that they needed.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

We deal with multiple vendors. We go from Cisco, to IBM, to EMC when we talk about clients. But I don't know how to answer this question from the perspective you are asking about. It is from a different point of view.

I'd recommend it, for sure. It offers supportability, reliability, and some scalability. The vendor is there as a partner.