Dell VPLEX vs. Hitachi Storage Virtualization Operating System (SVOS) vs. Red Hat Virtualization (discontinued)

This works in two fold. First it creates a copy of the data in two locations, protecting the data from a SAN or a NAS failure. Second, it provides a data point in a second location that can be used as storage for a stretched virtual cluster, giving a virtual stack a means to continue operation.

Incentivized

Hitachi SVOS is well suited for all environment in todays world. Storage plays a pivot role in all services provided in the current digital age. The Hitachi SVOS along with their blade proides magnificient perfromance boost which is not comparable to any vendors. Companies which has a huge database should consider this an option to evaluate. In addition orgnization who has a highly virtualized enviroment could also look at this product during their evaluation stage. This product is less benfit due to its cost in an environment where they have more number of physical servers as there are other solution which can be leveraged at a lower costs as they would not be utilizing the full feature set provided by the appliance

Incentivized

RHEV is well suited for organizations that need a cost-effective and flexible solution for their environment. As its vendor-independent software, easily install on any type of hardware. RHEV provides a GUI interface to manage the software, which makes the management of the software easier for the end-user. RHEV is best for non-production or less critical applications. RHEV can be easily integrated with other REDHAT software.

Incentivized

• High Availability
• Fail Over
• Business continuity

Incentivized

• Scaling Flexibility
• Supporting Hybrid/Cloud environments
• Improving cost efficiency
• Simplifying storage management

Incentivized

• RHV issues/bugs can be reported via Bugzilla to RH support. The service is great and typically responds soon.
• Red Hat distribution integration is seamless as it is integrated into the kernel.
• OpenStack support enables more customized VM templates and network configuration control.

Incentivized

• Requires high bandwidth low latency connectivity between sites.
• Cost wise it is expensive because you have to purchase with a mirror in mind.
• Configuration can be difficult.

Incentivized

• Cost is too high
• Documentation quality needs to be improved a lot. It is missing details currenty
• Organize all the documents and tools related info in easy to read and understand manner

Incentivized

• 1- RHVM API is pretty slow, especially after creating a VM it is not possible to retrieve the VM details (i.e VM's MAC Address) fast enough, where we need to place a pause in our Ansible Playbook, make the automation process slow.
• 2- RHV is still using collected to monitor the hypervisors which is deviating from Red Hat policy for other RHEL based applications to use PCP to monitor, which is richer in features.
• 3- It will be great if it is possible to patch the hypervisors using other tools such as satellite and not only via RHVM.
• 4- In the past Red Hat used to present patches in the z release (i.e. 4.3.z), and features in the y release (i.e 4. y), but starting from 4.4 that is mixed together wherein the Z release you get both patches and features, that is not good because that requires a lot of time to test when we patch as it includes features as well.
• 5- Engineering team has to be more reactive when new feature is requested.

Incentivized

It combines with enterprise level storages very well. Due to its high reliability & uptime, it is valued greatly by such institutes. Secondly, it's advanced virtualization reduces the complexity & cost, which in turn results in maximizing hardware utilization. Performance efficiency is amazing even under heavy workloads. Built-in cache optimization and automated tiering help ensure efficient data placement.

Incentivized

When this was purchased there was no other product that could achieve what we were looking for, now this feature is pretty standard with storage platforms. It is a costly solution not just the hardware but the infrastructure to support it. It requires a connection between sites with at least 3 gigabytes per second and sub 5 millisecond latency and a network infrastructure capable of handling that

Incentivized

There is definitely no comparison to any of the products when comparing to Hitachi SVOS. I beleieve this is the only unique product which can leverage older storage systems. Dell Avamar can be a great product if you are considering DR replication alone. The DR replication ratio is quite high in Dell avamar. However given that the current bandwidth available outweights this benefit

Incentivized

RHEV is an excellent product, includes more features, is less expensive, and has rock solid reliability and is backed with the best Red Hat Support in the industry. RHEV uses KVM under the hood which is used by all the big players in the industry (AWS, Rackspace, etc) to lower their overall costs and improve efficiency and profits and that's why RHEV is an excellent solution!

Incentivized

• Reduced down time.
• Provides business continuity.
• Reduces single point of failure on the SAN.

Incentivized

• Cost had bit of negative impact
• Due to stable OS and live migrations support it has allowed us to dynamically tune the capacity of our test clusters leading to better COGS for our business

Incentivized

• RHEV has provided a positive ROI as our customers are not experiencing as many outages during maintenances.
• We have not experienced any catastrophic failures as a result of vsphere losing connection to the ntp.
• There has been a level of stability in our environment that was not previously experienced with our previous vendor.

Incentivized