Everpure FlashArray X NVMe Reviews

My use case for using Pure FlashArray X NVMe is that my company is developing a blockchain platform for Ethereum or Bitcoin, and we are running four copies of the same node, each of which has to use isolated storage. They have exactly the same data, and we are using Pure Storage as our storage device, where most of our blockchain nodes have their unique volume, a different volume in Pure Storage. Pure Storage supports snapshots, and every four nodes have exactly the same data. By using Pure Storage, we can save physical storage.

The best features of Pure FlashArray X NVMe include the volume snapshot capabilities, which allow us to save most of the storage space by volume snapshots periodically. We are actively using the volume snapshot and create volume snapshots periodically, once a month for four months.

I have no specific improvements to suggest for Pure FlashArray X NVMe at this time.

The performance statistics could be enhanced. I can see the performance statistics in the Pure Storage console, but it does not show the performance by 4K byte unit. It displays IOPS and bandwidth, but IOPS is about real use, and I want to know how many IOPS are currently running in 4K byte units. I cannot see that IOPS because most storage systems report their performance by 4K byte unit. I want to see Pure Storage performance by 4K byte unit to compare with other storage or other internal NVMe SSD.

I have approximately two years of experience working with Pure FlashArray X NVMe, using Pure Storage X19, 1953.

We use the Evergreen architecture for non-disruptive upgrades. We attempted an upgrade last month, and there was a significant incident where the storage failed for about 10 hours, causing several of our services to stop. I appreciate the non-disruptive upgrade feature, but it is not perfect.

It is a very stable solution. I have not experienced any errors in usual cases, except for the accident during the upgrade process.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe is a scalable solution, and I agree with that assessment.

I would rate technical support from Pure Storage a nine on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is perfect.

Positive

Before Pure FlashArray X NVMe, I did not use a different solution; it was my first experience. Currently, I am trying to use other storage devices, such as IBM and NetApp, as we are running a Proof of Concept.

The partner company for Pure Storage installed and set up the solution. I do not have experience in installation or setup of the storage system.

The price of Pure FlashArray X NVMe is very expensive, though I do not know the actual price because I am using the Evergreen monthly payment. I do not know the exact device price, but I think the monthly price is not so expensive. However, I believe the physical device price is very expensive, based on what I have heard.

Currently, I am trying to use other storage devices, such as IBM and NetApp, as we are running a Proof of Concept.

I have experience working with Pure Storage array solutions and have a customer relationship with Pure as an end-user. I have not utilized the AI-driven management features. I have downloaded some articles about the storage.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a 10.

I use Pure FlashArray X NVMe for storing and managing data for my client projects.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe stands out for its simplicity in management and its ability to easily collect performance data for future implementation. Its scalability has met my organization's growth needs. 

Overall, it offers competitive performance, and the Evergreen storage model of Pure fits well with my organization.

There are some challenges with data encryption and reduction. The need for application data to be encrypted and reduced is a big problem, and the selling position with respect to data reduction is not competitive.

The scalability of Pure FlashArray X NVMe meets my organization's growth needs.

I have experience with Dell PowerMax, and it seemed to be more scalable than Pure.

I have evaluated Dell PowerMax as an alternative solution.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Pure FlashArray as ten.

There are so many applications on devices. Those are part of my job and a few others as well.

I find it more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses, not for the enterprise.

I appreciate the performance. The support service is nice.

After implementation, there are limitations, such as the number of paths, file systems, and replication options. It feels more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses rather than enterprises.

I have been using the solution for two years.

There are some stability issues. I think I can provide some examples.

The scalability issue is that the product team tends to increase the storage capacity.

The support service is nice.

Positive

We used Hitachi previously. Hitachi is more of an enterprise product, however, that was a management decision, not mine.

Implementing the product involves setting up a few racks, which can be done quickly. That said, configuring firewall policies and similar tasks takes more time. The implementation itself should not take more than a day.

I am an engineer, so I'm not the right person to ask about the implementation team.

I am an engineer and am not aware of the setup cost.

We considered Apache and Hitachi.

Choosing the right solution depends on customer requirements. I am an engineer, not a test guy.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

The solution acts as a storage for mission-critical applications. 

The tool's valuable features are speed, security, data compression, and reliability. Its data compression feature is the best that we have ever seen. It helps us to save money and resources. 

Regarding AI-driven initiatives, while we don't work directly with AI, I'm sure my customers are using it in their solutions. The tool's predictive analytics, which utilizes AI, work perfectly for service. Additionally, my customers run their AI solutions without any complaints so far.

One point I'd like to improve is that the tool should start selling small boxes again. It discontinued some products and is focusing on bigger, more capable boxes, neglecting the SMB market. Even though it's not a big market, it shouldn't have removed them.

One way to improve the product is to add an operational assistant that doesn't depend on VMware. It could also establish more alliances with other operational systems.

I have been working with the product for seven years. 

Pure FlashArray X NVMe is the most stable storage solution that never breaks down. 

95 percent of our customers have upgraded their boxes, and it's very easy and fast to do so. It's always within budget, and most expand their storage capabilities. It's straightforward. One of the most important government facilities in my market operates on more than 400,000 customers. It hasn't broken down anytime in the last six to seven years, despite hurricanes, earthquakes, and power outages. More than 600,000 users depend on the product. 

The technical support is great; it's always on time. However, they changed how they sell support, which we're still used to. But in terms of actual technical support, it's a plus. The only downside is that they don't pick up spare parts promptly after a replacement. They usually take a lot of time to collect the parts. However, overall, customers always have their issues resolved promptly.

I rate the tool's deployment ease a ten out of ten. We start with planning. We will have a plan once the customer gives us the purchase order. We discuss the methodology with the customer beforehand. Typically, the equipment ships within a month or even less. And when it comes to implementation, we usually take less than half a day to deploy the solution for a customer.

The tool is cost-effective. If it works and doesn't break, it's worth it. If you wait more than seven years to buy another one, you get a return on your investment.

The tool's pricing is cheap; I rate it a six to seven out of ten. Most of our sales are not subscription-based. We sell the hardware, and customers keep using it. They only renew the service part annually. The support can be a bit pricey, but the solution is more cost-effective than anything else out there.

My company has both small and enterprise clients. I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a ten out of ten. 

Pure FlashArray X NVMe has very few features. Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues.

We need to get more information about the performance fine-tuning that we are doing. Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe. It will be much better if Pure FlashArray X NVMe provides these options like other products.

The latency issue does come up multiple times. We tried to fix it, but we couldn't figure it out.

I have been using Pure FlashArray X NVMe for four years.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a seven out of ten for stability.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe is a scalable solution, but the scalability depends on the load. You cannot increase capacity if latency is present. So scalability mainly depends upon the latencies. I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a six out of ten for scalability.

The follow-up is missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe. With other solutions, we'll be able to identify the issues, and engineers will be available for remote sessions to fix the issues. However, with Pure FlashArray X NVMe, we need to escalate the issue and get an account manager for its resolution.

Neutral

Pure FlashArray X NVMe has the easiest initial setup. We can set up Pure FlashArray X NVMe within one hour because everything is preconfigured. If you know everything, you can do it. I have set up the solution within half an hour.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe’s pricing is cheaper than other products.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe is the best solution for small-scale projects. However, if you want to use it for a high-end project, you must scale it properly. You will face latency and performance issues if you don't scale the solution properly.

Overall, I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a seven out of ten.

We use the solution as storage for our vSphere environment.

The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature. We have two Pure Storages. They are in a high-available setup. If one fails, the other will take over. With all the virtual machines on the storage, we need a reliable solution. The product is reliable.

We are a little bit disappointed about the data deduplication feature. We were promised a deduplication rate of at least 2:1. At the moment, we get 1.8:1, which limits our expectations. We may run out of storage in the foreseeable future. We need better data deduplication.

I read that the vendor is working on a better deduplication algorithm. It will be useful for us if it works. We mostly rely on long-term releases. We don't need the most up-to-date features, but we need a reliable environment. It's important for us.

I have been using the solution since June 2021.

When we scheduled an update, the support technician called us and made the update remotely. We also had one outage where a controller of one of the products had failed and had to be replaced on-site. It took around 24 hours to replace the controller. The technician who came on-site did not have the controller with him. The technician waited one and a half hours until a taxi driver arrived with the controllers. It could have been coordinated better.

Positive

We used DataCore before. It was a Windows-based solution. We had to restart the servers every month because of Windows updates. Every month, we had to restart the servers manually. It was not very pleasant. Pure Storage is a Linux-based system, and there are not many security issues. We only have two updates about every six months. It is much more reliable.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment took about three days. The first day, we just put it in our racks and put the network cables and fiber channel cables on it. On the second day, we made the initial setup with high availability and created the first volumes. We migrated the data from our current storage to Pure Storage on the third day.

We deployed the solution with the help of certified partners. They were experienced professionals. They knew what they were doing.

Our performance has increased. We were using DataCore before. It wasn’t so performant. Pure Storage has flash drives. We have better IOPS.

The product is expensive. We bought it because we want to be able to use it for about ten years. The vendor offers maintenance contracts where we are guaranteed to be able to upgrade the system, change controllers, and do other things. We hope that in ten years, the solution will be worth the money.

Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

I use the Pure FlashArray X NVMe solution to enhance our storage infrastructure.

We are incredibly satisfied with the product's performance and flexibility. The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes. The platform's robust features include excellent sustainability tracking, and a comprehensive dashboard offering insights into IOPS, bandwidth, performance, and virtual activities. This not only streamlines our operations but also provides a clear and detailed overview of our storage environment. Additionally, it has multiple controllers, letting us balance the load smoothly.

In terms of improvement, the dual-controller configuration is effective, but I'm eagerly anticipating the roadmap's promise of introducing multiple controllers, which could significantly boost scalability and resilience. 

I would rate the stability of the solution as a ten out of ten.

We have approximately eight users of Pure FlashArray X NVMe at our company and we rely on it every day.

I would rate the technical support as an eight out of ten.

Positive

We switched to Pure FlashArray X NVMe from Hitachi because it is easier to use, offers better visibility, and has automated reports. The user-friendly interface allows us to extend volumes in seconds, a huge improvement compared to our previous experience with Hitachi, which took five to ten minutes for the same task. The simplicity and efficiency of Pure FlashArray made it the better choice for us.

The initial setup is relatively easy. Our deployment was quick, taking just one to two days. The first day was about setting up the hardware and basic configuration, while the second day focused on provisioning. The system's automation features, like running scripts to create volumes, made it a smooth process. Doing it in-house was straightforward, and the solution integrated seamlessly into our setup. It only takes one person to maintain the solution.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe has shown a solid return on investment, especially with the Evergreen feature. With this, you don't need to reinvest in the array every few years. Instead, by opting for the gold subscription every three years, you get a free upgrade to the latest controller release. It is a cost-effective way to stay up-to-date with the technology.

It is on the expensive side. I would give it a nine out of ten in terms of costliness.

Overall, I would rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe as a nine out of ten.

The workload is based on the SQL database. NVMe is on top of it. Earlier, I was facing issues despite having a FlashArray, as I was not getting the maximum IOPS. 

My application needed more than the maximum IOPS. I shifted based on a proper assessment to understand why I was not able to achieve it. The five-year period was completed for the number of storage units, which is why I shifted to Pure Storage.

Everything, especially the VMs inside, is pretty fast. The database workloads are pretty fast because I frequently move data from here to there. 

Whether it's a normal SQL native backup or manual movement, it happens frequently within the organization. It was one of the main requirements to have a FlashArray, and this really has sorted out these issues.

Adding some functions to the product would be beneficial. Storage replication should be essential, and the analytics should not incur extra charges. This is one of the main things organizations need.

I have been using it for approximately one year.

Until now, I have not performed any scalability. However, based on the storage I have at the moment, it is scalable. For my requirements, it is scalable enough.

Technical support is good at least through vendors, not directly with the principal. I would rate it as eight out of ten.

Positive

I changed the previous solution and took Pure Storage afterward. 

The setup was done by the vendors, not directly by me.

The overall product rating is nine out of ten.

I use the tool for Oracle databases, Oracle virtual machines, and Oracle Linux databases. I'm on the storage side, not a database administrator.

Managing data isn't difficult for me. The performance is usually perfect, but we sometimes have capacity problems. 

I have been working with the product for four years. 

When we need more capacity, we decide to export to another storage.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps us save money through data compression. It saves about double the cost, though I'm not certain.

Compared to other storage solutions like Huawei, the tool has a different working architecture. Sometimes, it is perfect for us, and sometimes, another vendor is better. It depends on our business needs.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Pure Storage has a hybrid deployment, and customers can get Pure Storage on AWS or Azure.

Pure Storage created this technology of the NVMe. They have very good features. Pure Storage has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator. It's NTP protection. Also, if your customer doesn't care about the usable space and just wants space to put their data, Pure makes one to four applications, which could take 250 or 300 terabytes of space. The solution is fast and reliable and has good install-based referrals.

Given its price, Pure is not the first option. If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure.

Customers ask if there is Turkish language support, but Pure Storage doesn't have it. Only partners give support in Turkish, or customers need to speak in English. It would be good if Pure Storage could improve this.

I've been in this sector for 28 years, and I've worked with Veeam for two or three years.

I have one client who installed Pure Storage almost eight years ago. During the eight years, there have been no problems such as hardware failure or stopping.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe's scalability a nine out of ten.

Pure has good storage, but they don't have Turkish language support.

The initial setup is very easy. Recently, they made an upgrade, a live system working on a bank, which is a non-interruption upgrade from one service to another one. The upgrade was very useful and easy to do. We didn't need to stop anything. The maintenance and the updates are very easy.

Pure Storage is better than IBM, Dell, and other solutions because it makes a good application and keeps its promise. Pure Storage has stability and works very fast. They keep their promise for what they build. For example, if they promise one to four with an application, they do that. Even if they can't do that, they put in an extra hard drive to keep their promise, and it's a free hard drive. The most important position of Pure depends on whether you are talking about net space or the use space.

Of course, Dell and IBM have good solutions, but that depends on what storage level we are talking about, such as SIP or NAS.

If the customer needs a certain size, say about 500 terabytes of usable space, Pure is not a good solution because it will be expensive. IBM could be a better choice.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten.

Pure might be better than other products could be. But in some projects, IBM is better for the customer. However, I must understand what the customer needs. I am not saying that Pure is the best, but In some projects, I prefer to go with Dell, HP, or IBM. I need to understand the customer needs and budget before comparing them. Pure has better technology right now, but if the customer has a small budget and if we are just talking about the use space or the net space, Pure doesn't work.