Everpure FlashArray Reviews

I use Pure Storage FlashArray for backend storage in our VMware environment.

The most valuable features I have experienced are the centralized management and redundancy under speed of the right disk. Everything is in one place with the entire dashboard, all alerts, and usage reports. I can expand the drive and take backups at the VM level to Pure Storage backup files seamlessly. I have also observed minimal outages.

The pricing needs to be improved as they offer very high budgeting prices. Searching is a big challenge in Pure Storage FlashArrays, especially when trying to restore a VM. I can only search manually, which is a required improvement.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for almost five years.

It was not difficult to deploy. I had help from Pure Storage and was able to migrate our storage easily.

I have not seen any instability. It's good.

The support is good, and the response time is satisfactory.

I used Hitachi and EMC in previous projects.

The initial setup was easy. It was a project that took around four to five months because we had small sites that needed integration.

It required an entire team for deployment. Around four people were involved.

I don't have the billing details right now, but the pricing is high.

I like Nutanix better from the presentations I have seen, but I did not work directly with it.

On the scale from 1 to 10, I rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine. I have contacted technical support when there was a data restore challenge, and the support quality was good.

On-premises

I primarily work with small and medium-sized businesses, and Pure Storage FlashArray has consistently been our primary storage array. Initially, we dedicated it to SQL Storage, but after witnessing its exceptional performance, we expanded its use to encompass everything else in our environment. Previously, we used VNX from EMC, which was incredibly slow. The significant improvement from tens or hundreds of milliseconds to microsecond response times motivated us to upgrade and make FlashArray the core of our infrastructure.

I immediately recognized the benefits of Pure Storage FlashArray, including the instant improvement in response time and performance compared to my previous storage solutions. A decade ago, Flash storage wasn't ubiquitous; it was considered a high-end solution, primarily utilized for caching, while spinning disks remained the standard. Therefore, the speed of FlashArray was remarkable. Over time, as FlashArray became more commonplace with increased adoption and competition, its reliability and seamless integration with VMware and other products solidified my decision to continue using it over alternatives like Nimble or other Gartner Magic Quadrant recommendations.

The interface has always been one of my favorite features because it's fantastic from a usability standpoint.

FlashArray significantly reduced our storage footprint, shrinking it from 30 racks down to just six. This dramatically decreased our overall impact, not only in terms of space but also power consumption. We went from hundreds of power-hungry spinning disks to a mere 30 FlashArray disks, resulting in a substantial difference in energy usage.

I have not had any downtime due to storage failure since using Pure Storage FlashArray.

Pure Storage FlashArray reduced our total cost of ownership by decreasing the number of labor hours required.

The most important feature of any storage array is its reliability, measured by its uptime. This is the core selling point of Pure Storage FlashArray. In my five years selling and troubleshooting storage solutions, I experienced firsthand the frustration and consequences of downtime and issues. These problems were notably absent with Pure Storage FlashArrays, which is what initially sold me on the brand.

The interface lacks the same level of control as some other arrays I've used. So, while it's easy to use and simple, it offers different control. I dislike that if I need to fine-tune something, I usually have to engage Pure Support because the ability to manipulate settings isn't in the interface. I prefer to be able to do things myself rather than rely on external help.

When we started using Pure Storage, they were a smaller company focused on expanding their user and customer base. However, as they grew, their customer service declined. A few years ago, I was using a four- or five-year-old Pure Storage FlashArray, and after three years, they informed me that I needed to upgrade my disk to continue receiving support. This forced me to spend an unreasonable amount of money on an upgrade, especially for a small business. Unlike other storage providers like EMC or NetApp, third-party support wasn't an option. I feel that Pure Storage's growth has led them to lose touch with their customers and the excellent support that once set them apart. Their support philosophy has changed, and this negatively impacts the overall experience, particularly for critical data center components.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for ten years.

There was one instance about ten years ago when I had some high latency in certain situations, and Pure Storage patched that quickly. So, I'd say the Pure Storage FlashArray is extremely stable.

Scaling up the Pure Storage FlashArray can be expensive if you don't initially size it correctly. If your first array reaches its capacity, you'll need to purchase a whole new array to upgrade. While it is scalable, planning and sizing it correctly during your initial purchase is crucial to avoid unnecessary costs.

I've used many storage arrays over the years, but I have yet to use or personally manage an all-flash array. I have extensive experience with spinning disk arrays, including EMC, VNX, NetApp, and a few Dell EqualLogic.

The initial deployment is straightforward. I have done five of them so far. Usually, someone from Pure Storage is on-site for each deployment. I even deployed one during COVID-19, which was a bit challenging, but they allowed me to proceed and guided me through it because I had prior experience. Overall, the process is straightforward.

The deployment takes a couple of hours, and one person with experience is enough to complete it.

I need to get updated pricing information because it's been a while since I last checked. When I last looked, the prices were reasonable, and we could get an excellent array for about $60,000. So, overall, their pricing is reasonable. However, I haven't looked at their newest pricing, and I know they just released something impressive, like a six-terabyte NVMe or something like that. I'm curious about the pricing for those ultra-dense, high-density storage options, but I still need to check them out.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray eight out of ten.

If you're considering a Pure Storage FlashArray, it's a solid choice for performance and value. However, be aware that they may pressure you to upgrade after a few years if your model becomes outdated, potentially costing you an additional $50,000 to maintain support. So, while it's a top-tier option from a technology perspective, factor in the possibility of future upgrade costs when making your decision.

Maintenance is not required. From a support perspective, if something breaks, it automatically notifies Pure Storage. They will inform us of the issue and send a replacement part. If we are under maintenance, they will send the part or dispatch someone to fix it. Generally, it's a very hands-off system. They proactively notify us if we're running low on capacity or if there are performance issues, which I've only encountered once due to a bug they quickly patched. Overall, it's a hands-off experience.

Ensure you receive a written guarantee that the discs will remain in service for at least the next three years and won't require replacement at your expense. Also, confirm you have conducted thorough research to avoid unforeseen costs arising in the next three to five years.

On-premises

I use FlashArray to manage storage and DR sites for my clients.

We saw the benefits of Pure Storage immediately. The biggest benefit was data reduction. We migrated 700 terabytes of storage to Pure Storage and reduced that to 400 terabytes. It managed the bottlenecks since the storage was moved to mNVRAM instead of mechanical devices. Unfortunately, since our staff is based on the storage size, I lost one of my coworkers because of the incredible reduction we achieved.

The main benefit of FlashArray is the speed, and the compression you can get with these boxes is insane. FlashArray's single pane of glass management is nice. It allows you to manage storage easily.

You can even review the devices from your phone. You don't need to be connected to your company's website or VPN to access alerts and reports. While you can't manage the devices using your phone, you can review all the important details about the machine. 

The device is incredibly user-friendly. To create a volume, go to "Volumes," which will give you all the options for what to do with the volume. You can go to "replications" and it will show you everything you can do with replications. It's very straightforward.

FlashArray could improve on the administrative side. For example, when you need to upgrade the boxes, we can't do that ourselves. We need to open a ticket with support and have them do that for us. You don't need to be on the call with them. We tell them we have a slot that we want to upgrade, and they send us an email when it's done. 

I'm hands-on, but I don't have a way to play with the device. In terms of troubleshooting, there isn't much to troubleshoot. I can see the logs, and that's all. I wish they had more APIs to connect to other environments. They should expand their catalog. Right now, they have the top APIs, but Pure Storage lacks APIs for small companies. They have VMware, Oracle, and the top brands. 

I have used FlashArray since 2019.

I only experienced lag once, and that was my error. I accidentally shrunk the bandwidth. After a few P1 calls, we realized it was our error. The reading and writing are pretty fast, and there are lots of logs and reports that help you diagnose the problem. We haven't had much downtime, and there is redundancy. 

Scalability is simple. You can add an array when you need more storage. 

I rate Pure Storage support eight out of 10. Pure Storage technical support resolves issues quickly. We had to open a P1 ticket because we lost a volume. They got on a call with us and had our device running in a couple of hours, but it took us 30 to 45 minutes to get an engineer. 

However, it went smoothly once we got someone on the phone. We also work closely with our account team. They provide use with tips on how to get the most out of our product

Positive

I used IBM v7000, Infinidat, and Dell Data Domain for various clients. FlashArray has advantages in terms of user-friendliness, speed, and compression. The other solutions are highly robust but use a mechanical disk. Moving to FlashArray was a game-changer. 

Infinidat can offer similar performance, but FlashArray's compression is a little better. Pure Storage is also a small machine, so it draws less power. It isn't a huge device you must put in a rack. It doesn't have a mechanical disk producing lots of heat. 

Deploying FlashArray was simple. Pure Storage had its engineers on-site to help us with the various network options. They configured the devices, so we had to connect them to the network switches and the LDAP. After that, we only needed to log in with our credentials and create the volume. 

Installing the devices and setting up volumes took a couple of weeks. It depends on your network speed because copying all that data can take a long time. With a fast network, you can set up a device in 10 to 15 minutes. We had 700 devices, but it was pretty simple once all the old data was in Pure Storage. The only post-deployment maintenance was upgrades. 

We take care of the customer's environment using three teams. One handles the storage and SAN. One is responsible for Windows, and one handles the Unix system. 

No storage device is cheap, but Pure Storage is fairly priced and offers what you pay for. You get all the licenses in the future when you purchase a license. 

They have an Evergreen program, where they upgrade your hardware every three years. It's cheaper than buying a new one. They replace the old hardware for a discount, but you have to pay for a new license for ransomware protection and a license to connect to VMware and manage all your VM farms. 

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of 10. I recommend keeping in touch with the Pure Storage team and taking advantage of the training and certification. They have good academies where you can learn how to administer the devices. 

On-premises

We use Pure Storage FlashArray for storage allocation, DR, replication, and performance. We are migrating both servers and storage to Pure Storage.

It has reduced downtime significantly, and the self-service upgrade feature allows us to handle upgrades smoothly through the console.

It has helped decrease our organization’s storage footprint. There is about 15% reduction.

The snapshot feature is valuable. It protects data based on the policy. We can schedule snapshots and have unalterable data. It reduces management efforts.

Vendor support is good. After raising a case, we get a response within an hour or two.

I have been primarily working with storage and have not fully explored other areas, but there is some room for improvement when it comes to performance reporting.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for one year. I have been using Hitachi Storage and Sun Storage on all legacy devices. We are migrating all these servers and storage to Pure Storage FlashArray.

Our experience with the stability of FlashArray has been excellent. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it an eight.

The scalability of the solution is quite good, and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

For a P2 issue, the SLA is 4 hours. They were able to resolve the issue within two hours. Just a month ago, we faced an issue, and they were able to resolve that within an hour. We got support immediately.

The technical support provided by Pure Storage is exceptional, and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have been handling all the legacy environments, such as Hitachi USP V/VM, Hitachi AMS, Sun StorageTek, and EMC. They all were at the end of life and out of support. We have more than 1,000 devices and servers. Our servers were also out of service and end of life. We planned to migrate all the servers and data into Pure Storage as single devices. Instead of using multiple storage solutions, we wanted to use a single one and move to Pure Storage. We also had to deal with different vendors for support. We wanted to have a single vendor.

With these legacy devices, we were not getting any support. When we had any hardware failure or some issues, we were not getting a solution. For any hardware failures, we were not getting the parts. That is why we thought of migrating to Pure Storage.

The deployment took about two months, primarily due to planning and the time taken for customer approval processes.

We are primarily using it on-premises, but we have plans to move to the cloud over the next one or two years.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a seven out of ten.

On-premises

We use Pure Storage FlashArray as well as FlashBlade. In Pure Storage FlashArray, we have the SAN and NAS storage models. 

We focus on performance when it comes to enterprises. We need both types of storage, one is for better performance and the other one is for larger space requirements. We use both types of storage at the same time.

Pure Storage FlashArray is helpful in meeting the performance needs of critical services. Different models are available, and each model has a different series. For example, you have the C model, and in this model, you have the 50 series and 90 series. Similarly, in the X model, you have the 70 series. We now get a lot more models of Pure Storage than before. Previously, not many models of Pure Storage were available, so we had to rely on other vendors, such as NetApp, but we faced performance issues with NetApp. It also required more troubleshooting. We started to get a better response time after we moved from NetApp to Pure Storage.

We have a single pane of glass for management. It is good.

With Pure Storage, the creation of LUNs is easier and quicker than others. We have not had any issues with it. The response time improved significantly, and the entire process became much more efficient, eliminating previously existing troubles.

Some storages do not provide an easy IOPS report, but with Pure Storage, we can see performance impact directly on the storage itself. That is the best feature.

Additionally, creating a replication pair is straightforward without the need for CLI commands. With other storage solutions, we have to use the CLI commands, whereas we do not need to do that with Pure Storage. We can simply create a replication pair. That is another good feature.

I like the performance. Performance-wise, it accommodates the needs of highly-critical servers. It is reliable. That is the third best feature. 

Awareness about Pure Storage needs to increase. Currently, people mostly think of Dell and NetApp when it comes to storage. More documentation and presentation would help reach new users. They need to come up with new ideas and ways to improve their brand awareness.

They also need to see if the system can handle creating a large number of LUNs at the same time. Any automation or a way of doing that could be helpful.

We have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for about two and a half years.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability. It has been good.

We have a lot of applications with millions of users. There are five data centers. Three of them are in Hyderabad and two of them are in Mumbai.

We have 150 people working with storage solutions.

I would rate the customer service a seven out of ten. Depending on priority cases, the vendor's response time can vary. For P1 or P2, a case owner is assigned within 15 to 20 minutes. Everything is great from the vendor's side.

Neutral

In my environment, different types of storage vendors are there. We have NetApp, Hitachi, Dell, and other vendors. We have been using Dell PowerStore Storage and we have been migrating some of them too. We have been using Pure Storage FlashArray and FlashBlade for a long time, and we have seen a lot of differences compared to the other storage solutions. 

The performance, latency, and throughput of Pure Storage FlashArray are good. The throughput is 5 GB or 12 GB per second. Latency is also below 5 milliseconds.

The replication process is easier with Pure Storage compared to others. Replication was one task that I found difficult with other storage solutions.

The deployment and associated activities are handled by a different team. They take care of everything necessary for the new environment.

With proper approvals, we can implement it within a month. It does require some maintenance from our end, but the vendor takes care of all the upgrades.

Pricing is moderate. It is neither cheap nor expensive.

We are happy with Pure Storage. About six months ago, we had a Pure Storage event in my company, and I liked attending that Pure Storage event.

Pure Storage should focus on creating more awareness and providing documentation and presentations. It should also aim to reach lower-end clients who are currently focused on other storage types.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

On-premises

I had four or five Flash Arrays. I used it primarily for virtualization and video media, depending on the workload. 

It's simple to use. Upgrading is easy, as is the user interface. The connectivity is simple. 

The performance of the product is phenomenal. 

Pure was open to be checked out by any observability platform. It integrates well with Splunk, for example. 

Its single management pane of glass and dashboard are excellent. At first, it was hard to get used to since I was used to other types of dashboards. However, once I figured it out, it was great. It was very easy to work with. 

The benefits were realized right away. Between the flash array and the compression, you can really see how good it is. Our databases run a lot better now.

Pure hasn't helped us decrease our storage footprint. However, I was at a company that demanded storage when I was using it. We had different solutions for different storage needs. We always needed more storage for video, for example. The capacity was great in that sense. 

When I used Pure, I worked in an environment that was 24/7. Everything we ever built was designed to be damn near bulletproof. I wasn't dependent on a single unit at any point. Everything we did had to be doubled, tripled, quadrupled up. Sometimes, multiple sites with multiple doubles based on the requirements. We've never had downtime.

The evergreen architecture is great. You can interchange things and move up. That never happens with other storage solutions. 

Sometimes you don't realize that the capacity on offer is actually because of compression and all those things. It's just not as visible as it is on a NetApp or some other platform. You don't get the full view. You get the view that they give you, which is fine, but you don't get the full view. You don't get the nuts and bolts. Once you dig in and you learn how to read it, then it makes sense. However, when I first started, it didn't make sense to me.

For large storage needs, it is expensive. When we got too big, we didn't go for more Pure, we went with Isilon, since we were working into the petabytes range.

I've used the solution for three to four years.

I've contacted technical support to run upgrades. They are professional, easygoing, and answer me on time. They know their stuff. I've never had issues. I can contact the right people directly; I never had to roam around looking for someone. Sometimes it will take some time for someone to get back to me once I put in a ticket. 

Positive

We used HP Nimble. That was a full all-flash array. The difference between Nimble and Pure was that with Pure, the upgrade process had to be done by tech support, which I didn't mind at all. In the Nimble, it was just a file, and I could upgrade it. Upgrade-wise, Nimble was better. Beyond that, they were pretty on par with each other. 

I have a lot of experience with Pure and find the solution easy to deploy. 

The only real maintenance is upgrading. There isn't a whole lot we need to worry about. It's one of the easier solutions to deploy with the least amount of failures. Things seldom went wrong. 

Pure is not cheap. Of course, cost isn't everything. If you can buy a really cheap piece of hardware, however, when it comes to being able to get data, doing upgrades, navigation, and all kinds of stuff, you spend more time and effort trying to do that than just doing the work and letting Pure handle a lot of this stuff. So, you can pay it upfront or later. One way or another, you're going to pay for it.

Now, everything is coming down in price since there's more need and competition. I don't see a huge difference in the market. Everything is comparable, size-wise, and everything else is comparable in cost. Storage is storage. It's going to cost you no matter what. That said, those features, those extra things that they put out there, those extra parts are really where the expenditure really comes from. 

I'm a customer and end-user. 

If a company has the money and they want to do it, I don't understand why they wouldn't. From an administrator's perspective, not from a business point of view, it's great. However, users need to check the numbers. 

From an administrator perspective, they handle the upgrades, they do all these things - you don't have to do it. That's a whole lot of time you don't have to spend. For the performance, you get better monitoring. You don't have to spend extra time, money, and effort getting an extra monitoring solution. You can get that from them. Observability and monitoring are extremely important when it comes to this. Pure gives you a great way of connecting it to anything and getting information. The API works great. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. The only issue is it is really expensive. 

I use Pure Storage FlashArray to provide LUNs or volumes for end users who want to work on a database for zoning, enabling them to operate effectively with end-user arrays.

The device gives us a lot of protection in maintaining our data in the storage. It gives high throughput across many locations.

We have faster data processing with low file consumption. This includes multi-terabyte databases in memory with read-write speed four times faster than any HDD. 

Pure Storage FlashArray offers numerous valuable features, such as low latency and high throughput. It has significant data protection in the form of snapshots. It allows data portability around the cloud and on-premises devices. Performance backup is also a key feature.

The support that we received from the vendor during upgrades has been very good. They instructed us very well through the remote connection.

I have worked with two types of Pure Storage FlashArray. So far, I have not found any issues. There is not a great need for improvement, but better pricing could be beneficial.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for three years.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

There is always downtime when working with production servers. I have to plan downtime of three or four hours when launching new servers or logging into new servers with new LUNs. If a lot of people are logging into a FlashArray server, it will require downtime if we have to modify anything.

It is scalable. I would rate the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

It is being used at a single location. We have 30 people using it.

Their support is too good. As soon as I log a case with them, they are always available. They are very fast. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with different storage boxes such as Quantum, NetApp, and HPE, but they are different. They are block storage. Pure Storage provides a unique compatibility when working with LUNs and volumes, offering a totally different SAN product. It is also easier than the others.

The initial setup was straightforward and took about 40 minutes.

The solution has saved us time and resources. It has saved about 20% of my time.

I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It could be improved.

I would recommend Pure Storage FlashArray to anyone because it offers great resilience, high throughput, and excellent storage provision to users on SAN boxes. It simplifies the process of zoning or taking backups.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

On-premises

We use Pure Storage FlashArray as storage in our VMware environment.

Pure Storage FlashArray's single management dashboard is important to us.

We saw immediate benefits with Pure Storage FlashArray in the areas of ease of use and performance. 

Pure Storage FlashArray has significantly helped us decrease the overall storage footprint in our company by approximately 70 percent or more.

Pure Storage's FlashArray with Evergreen architecture is essential for our organization to maintain continuous uptime. Our previous experience with NetApp required costly upgrades and disruptive downtime. With Evergreen, we have non-disruptive upgrades at no additional cost as long as we maintain our support contract with Pure Storage. We have undergone several upgrades without impacting our customers, which has been a significant benefit.

We have not had any downtime with our storage systems since switching to Pure Storage, whereas with previous vendors, we experienced downtime primarily due to performance issues. 

Pure Storage FlashArray has allowed us to expand substantially over the last ten years with no downtime. The cost has been manageable, and we have encountered no issues with scaling.

The most valuable features are the ease of use and support. Specifically, the snapshotting abilities of Pure Storage FlashArray are features we like a lot. The FlashArray management pane of glass, or the dashboard, is also helpful for us and is considered important.

On the technical side, the way that the array performs cleanup and garbage collection sometimes pushes it close to 100 percent utilization, causing some stress. A little more transparency about what's happening and why, would help us feel more comfortable.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for about ten years.

Stability has been great. We have not experienced any issues with stability, and we have not had any downtime in our operations since using Pure Storage FlashArray.

Pure Storage FlashArray has demonstrated excellent scalability, allowing for substantial expansion over the past decade without any downtime and at a reasonable cost.

Customer support has been excellent. We have used support multiple times for various issues, including failed disks, replacing failed FlashArray modules, controller upgrades, technical questions, and guidance for using their APIs and best practices. Their performance and speed have been outstanding, and I consider their customer service to be a ten out of ten.

Positive

Previously, we used NetApp and Nexenta, an open-source product. Our experience with Pure Storage has been better than NetApp, specifically around ease of use and cost.

The initial deployment of Pure Storage FlashArray was extremely easy. Deploying our first Pure array took about two hours compared to a week for deploying a single array with Nexenta.

One person is required for the deployment of FlashArray.

The pricing of Pure Storage FlashArray is reasonable. We spend a lot less time managing storage than with other vendors. Compression and deduplication mean we need a lot less capacity to support the same amount of data. The Evergreen support model provides new controllers every three years at no cost, significantly reducing operational expenses.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of ten.

Pure Storage FlashArray maintenance is handled by Pure Storage and includes software upgrades, security patching, and replacing failed storage media. We monitor performance using Pure Storage's provided tools.

Pure Support and sales engineers are readily available to assist with defining best practices and optimizations, offering valuable guidance for configuration, especially with third-party tools like VMware. So don't hesitate to reach out to their support. For instance, they have helped optimize VMware configurations for peak performance.

On-premises

We use FlashArray for enterprise block workloads, especially VMware databases. Everything is a virtual environment these days. We work with companies in partner countries in industries like telecom and banking. 

You can see Pure Storage's performance benefits as soon as you have deployed the solution. In terms of compression and deduplication, you can see the benefit once you've migrated 25 to 30 percent of your workload to FlashArray. The algorithm needs that much to see how much duplicated data is inside the array. It has reduced the client's storage footprint 100 percent. 

One feature that's particularly valuable for our finance customers is Pure Storage's safe mode. It protects against ransomware attacks by taking snapshots. Our customers were very impressed with this capability. The data reduction is also impressive compared to other providers. 

The single pane of glass management is simple and easy to operate. It also seamlessly integrates with VMware and cloud environments. Pure Storage is hosted on the public cloud, so it's easy to monitor the array from your mobile phone.

Pure Storage's logs could provide more visibility to the end-user. The logging algorithms are different from those of other vendors. 

I have used Pure Storage for three years. 

Pure Storage FlashArray is reliable, and I've had no problems with hardware or software failures. 

I rate Pure Storage support eight out of 10. Their support is excellent, and they respond quickly. 

Positive

We recommend different solutions based on a questionnaire on the customer's needs. Are there performance or resource crunches? Is their current solution becoming obsolete? This isn't a problem with Pure Storage because it will last forever. 

Pure Storage builds its own drives using direct flash modules. Pure Storage has solutions for all scales from small businesses to the enterprise level. 

FlashArray is pre-deployed on hardware. It's very easy to deploy using one person. 

Pure Storage offers a good long-term ROI. You will get the new technology and the same level of support on an initial capital investment. It's a cost-effective solution for customers of any size for long term.

The Evergreen program is critical for our customers who would like to stay on this platform forever, control operating costs, and adapt to new technologies. 

The most important feature is that you get support services forever for a flat annual renewal cost.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray eight out of 10. 

On-premises

We use Pure Storage FlashArray as our client storage solution. We create dedicated hosts and allocate appropriate storage space to each host server to accommodate their needs.

Our clients were experiencing difficulties running jobs and encountering storage limitations. By implementing Pure Storage FlashArray, we can remotely access the host server and expand the storage capacity to meet our clients' needs.

The FlashArray's single pane of glass is crucial for providing clients with easy access to IOPS and other essential features. This means the FlashArray must be highly accessible, with increased bandwidth, but no additional requirements.

Compared to Dell Unity, Pure Storage FlashArray offers a more comprehensive port configuration, providing eight front-end and four back-end ports. Dell Unity limits connections to two front-end and two back-end ports. Furthermore, Pure Storage FlashArray includes an Ethernet, USB, and management port, enhancing its connectivity options. In contrast, Dell Unity uses a heterogeneous storage environment, combining flash arrays and SAS arrays, which requires manual configuration and assignment based on specific requirements. Pure Storage FlashArray, on the other hand, exclusively employs Pure FlashArray components, eliminating the need for heterogeneous storage and simplifying management.

Pure Storage FlashArray helps save our clients a maximum of 30 percent in resources.

Pure Storage FlashArray has to be available for our clients 24/7, which has significantly reduced downtime.

I work with Pure Storage FlashArray models 2K and 8K. Compared to Unity, these arrays offer significant advantages, such as NVMe technology and higher IOPS. Additionally, they provide more storage capacity and are easier to access than other models.

I want to improve the overall service level of the solution.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for two years.

Pure Storage FlashArray is stable. The arrays are good for four years, after which we must destroy them and migrate the data to a new one.

I would rate the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of ten.

We use NetApp for file-level access and EMC, VMAX, and PowerMax. We will continue using NetApp for file-level access, which requires us to provide a shared folder or create a new one. We will allocate storage space to this specific folder, not the entire cluster. This minimal storage is necessary for administrative access and small activities or groups using NAS storage. For larger datasets, high IOPS, or big data storage, we use Pure Storage FlashArray.

The deployment process is straightforward. We will access the GUI, partition the volumes, isolate the host group, and segregate the host. As part of my previous work, I was also involved in decommissioning Pure Storage systems. When dealing with Pure Storage, it's essential to verify the status of the volumes. Ensure that all volumes are offline before proceeding with the decommissioning process. Once the volumes are offline, we will delete them, remove the WWPNs, destroy the volumes, and finally delete the host server. We can deploy around 30 servers per month.

While Pure Storage FlashArray may carry a higher price point, our clients observe a return on investment due to the significant time savings enabled by its exceptional IOPS performance. This increased efficiency more than justifies the initial cost.

Pure Storage FlashArray offers higher performance and IOPS than Dell Unity, thanks to its use of 32-gigabyte cables. While it comes with a higher price tag, this investment often translates to significant improvements in performance.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of ten.

Pure Storage FlashArray offers exceptional accessibility, ensuring our clients experience minimal to no performance issues, even during intensive I/O operations. Our clients have consistently reported high IOPS and successful job execution without encountering any errors or delays. This rapid response time, measured in milliseconds, underscores the FlashArray's ability to provide seamless storage access.

Our clients are enterprise clients.

Maintenance is necessary for ports, DIMs, fans, power units, and arrays. If a power unit fails, a redundant unit will access the data. We will notify the client of any issues and submit a service request for resolution. After the replacement, we will verify the GUI and log into the Pure FlashArray to check the status of the specific disk. If it's online, we'll take a screenshot and close the case after making the changes.

I recommend Pure Storage FlashArray to others due to its exceptional IOPS performance and user-friendly interface.

Hybrid Cloud