Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Power Virtual Server

In my opinion, I would say it is more suitable to huge workloads, where you really needs the reliability and performance that a Netapp storage provides to you, larger share sizes, etc. Use cases where you really needs to store large amounts of non-structured data. It is not a cheap solution, I mean, you can find other options to store your data on the Cloud at smaller prices. So, for small companies, or companies that depends mostly on web-applications, or don't have such a specific requirements, I would not go with Azure Netapp Files.

Incentivized

Due to its reliability, it is well-suited for mission-critical applications. It is also well suited for running multiple applications on a single server and fully utilizing the server's full capacity. However, it is not well suited for servers that require dedicated IO resources.

• We have found that it scales very well. In some cases we had a large existing storage infrastructure and were able to migrate it while other times we started from scratch with low storage demands and Azure NetApp Files fit the bill each time.
• We have been impressed with the replication capabailities.
• The read and write speed when interacting with files is a major asset.

Incentivized

• It is easy to segregate test environment with production environment
• security and compliance
• IBM server are scalable with - with increase in data it can dynamically allocate the resources with saves the company cost
• it is very convenient to use with help of its hardware management console and integrated virtualization manager.
• The best part it , it support our legacy system.

Incentivized

• It does not support file locking although its available as an add-on
• Design is far from native and has a learning curve
• We would like to have backup functionality built in so that we don't run into the issue where the replication process makes a copy of the corrupted data.

Incentivized

• Having a wider selection of software to work with would be welcome.
• Training and education is daunting at first and could be simplified.
• Much of the automation is wonderful after it is set up but getting started has a steep learning curve.

Incentivized

At the moment we are 100% satisfied with the performance and our support team is well used to the process involved. So unless we have some major issues in adopting, we are sure to be with IBM itself.

Incentivized

Power Systems Virtual Server on IBM Cloud for IBMi's overall usability is good, but it can be difficult for new users, some learning is needed, but there are tonns of online documentation.

Incentivized

Very easy to use.

Incentivized

Easy to use.

Incentivized

As with most IBM products the ongoing support for IBM Power Virtual Server is solid and consistent. IBM provides a clear roadmap for receiving support of their products. Both voice and online response is offered. It is obvious that IBM has the internal systems and culture to maintain support functions. This starts from the initial support call to the problem analysis and continues through the problem resolution. Documentation and communication are consistent within this process.

Incentivized

It is economic.

Incentivized

Azure NetApp Files is very well integrated with Microsoft Azure, we use the same request methods that everyone knows from Azure. NetApp and Microsoft has built a very efficient solution that allows you to transfer virtually any service to the Microsoft public cloud. Azure NetApp Files also protects our data very well.

Incentivized

They both have their own ups and downs and it totally depends on the team which suits them best. IBM Power Virtual Server has Performance, Scalability, Reliability and Availability, Compatibility, and Good Vendor Support. The specific use case and workload requirements played a significant role. Some workloads may benefit from IBM Power Systems' architecture, while others may perform equally well on alternative platforms.

Incentivized

It is efficient.

Incentivized

• The main hurdle in promoting this solution is the price. Its price definitely requires an improvement. It is more expensive than other options, so customers go for a cheaper option.
• Its security and ease of use are most valuable.
• It is stable and scalable.

Incentivized

• We have had a return on investment of 30%.
• There have also been 80% fewer application crashes due to a lack of resources that previously ran on the X86 platform.
• Administration management has been simplified and staff can dedicate themselves to the development of applications, instead of providing support to users when the applications do not respond efficiently, this made staff 45% more productive.

Incentivized