Pure FlashArray X NVMe Reviews

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 it for databases and VMs. We are using its most recent version.

Its speed is superior to our existing Unity x00 model. There are three different models of Unity. There is x00, which is the original model for Unity. There is x50, and now you have x80s. It has performed substantially better than our x00 model and a little bit better than our x50 model. I cannot rate it against the x80s on the Unity class, but from what we've got, it has beaten those two models performance-wise. This is bearing in mind that those x00 models were there before they had their own X-series with the NVMe flash.

The Pure1 App is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can see your diagnostics and cases in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone.  EMC has not unified both diagnostics and cases into a single App that I am aware of at this time.

You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me.

Their technical support is excellent, but I can't get hold of engineers directly at Pure even when an engineer is assigned to me, which is a downside.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Its stability is excellent.

Its scalability is good. I wouldn't call it excellent because you're limited on capacity customization. You get that limitation with any array, but it seems there is a little bit more flexibility on the Unity side from a scale-out standpoint. Pure is not flexible on your datapak expansions. You're locked into a certain amount of storage. You can't customize your Pure flash storage to the degree that you can on the EMC Unity side.

Currently, its usage is pretty extensive. We're considering purchasing C-class arrays for our next use case, and we're about to use them more because of several factors. One of them has been that EMC is now starting to lose our organization's trust because of subpar support coming mostly out of India. The offshore talent in Asia or Australia is good, but the offshore talent in India is not good. Usually I know more than their L1/L2 support folks about their product.

Their technical support is excellent, but I can't directly get hold of engineers at Pure directly. Their support system is such that even with an engineer assigned to me, I can't phone them directly even if an extension at an 800 number. I have to basically jump through a manager on duty, to try to get to the engineer, whereas with EMC, the engineer might not pick up the phone, but I've got extensions for whoever gets assigned to a case to leave a voicemail on top of an email.  Pure wants to handle most of their support thru email exchange unless Zoom warranted. This is a downside that Pure has. If you get into an issue after you've got your initial engineer and you need to follow up, getting to them directly can take a little bit longer or more effort.  While Pure has an "Escalation" button on their support portal they forget humans like to talk to humans directly when urgent.  True you can email please call me.

Its setup was more straightforward than EMC Unity's setup. It took about two hours.

It is not maintenance-heavy. Its maintenance appears less than an EMC Unity array. I handle the array, but in terms of maintenance, you can schedule the upgrades with Pure, like EMC. It is done all remotely by Pure's own people. That's one thing that is not good with EMC because you have to deal with their Indian offshore team for upgrades which is lacking many times.

Pure support is how EMC used to be. EMC used to be follow-the-sun, where you had support in Cork, Ireland, the US, and then Australia, but like a lot of our US companies, they have now offshored and it is reflected in worse support in several ways, one being communication barriers.  Resolution times have been extended more than it should due to offshore support. I have had extended
turnaround times to get solutions because of their lack of talent. There
is a language issue, and their L1 support team is clearly not as good
as it should be.

What I do love about Pure is that it is lighter in maintenance.

We used an integrator, and our experience with them was great.

Pretty much everything that you need is licensed when you buy the product. Licensing to me is different than the maintenance cost, but they can bleed into one another. We buy the product, and we expect three years of support bundled into what we negotiate on our storage arrays. I would start to see maintenance costs going into the fourth year, but we're not there yet.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It is hard for anyone to get a 10.

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.

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.

Currently, it's our tier-one storage. We use it mostly for our Oracle databases.

It has drastically improved the performance of our high-end Oracle databases and allows us the ability to replication to a DR location with ease.

We love the product. Pure Storage works really well. 

The CAT tool and also the ability to upgrade the unit's place grades are great. It allows for in-place control or upgrades.

It's a very simple implementation.

They have a good tool to analyze upgrades.

The stability is good.

Technical support has been excellent. 

I cannot recall coming across areas in need of improvement. 

We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI.

I've used the solution for three years. 

The product is very stable. We've had no issues that are related to the array.

We haven't done much scaling. We're ordering an upgrade this week and therefore we will know soon enough how easy it is to expand. We're upgrading the controllers and the disks this month. Scalability so far seems good.

The users are 90% Oracle admins and then 10% SQL admins.

It's used pretty extensively. It is our top-tiered storage for the entire company in our major data centers. We have two of them and we are upgrading them this month.

Technical support has been very helpful and responsive. 

Positive

We used to use a Dell EMC VMAX. We upgraded from that product due to high costs, and little flexibility. This solution also offers specialized Oracle tools.

The solution is very straightforward to set up. It's easy. It's not difficult. 

Deployment of an array took an hour. Implementation of the product did take a while, due to our complexity, however, it works right now. 

I have one staff member for managing the array and then the database team is about four people and it's a global database.

We handled the initial setup ourselves in-house We did not need outside assistance from consultants or integrators. 

We noted a net ROI in about 11 months.

We only pay the support costs. The support cost per array is about $20,000 a year for 24/7 support. There are no additional costs. 

We did evaluate Dell PowerMax and NetApp AFF.

The reason why we picked Pure Storage was that it was reasonably priced and had better upgrade capacity, as well as better scale-out capacity. It also had better Oracle tools, especially the CAT tool.

We're customers and end-users.

We really like the product and their other tools are all great.

I would advise new users to look into it for your higher-end Oracle and SQL needs. It does really well with the database products and with low latency requirements with a lot of transactional data.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. It handles all our needs. The only reason why it didn't get a ten is the fact that the tracking of high CPU and garbage collection is still needed. That's kind of important to us.

We rely on the Pure FlashArray X NVMe solution primarily for its performance and high availability. These are the key factors driving our adoption of this system, helping us meet our demanding storage needs effectively.

The standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability. These aspects, along with reliability, serviceability, and international support, make it a valuable solution for our customers.

There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features. We would appreciate a built-in transparent failover in the next release to eliminate the need for a separate metro cluster.

I have been working with Pure FlashArray X NVMe for over 12 years.

I would give the stability of the solution a nine out of ten.

I would give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. It is highly scalable. We use Pure FlashArray X NVMe mainly for medium to large businesses.

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup as a nine out of ten. The deployment takes hours to days for us, depending on factors such as migration requirements.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten in terms of costliness.

I would recommend Pure FlashArray X for its reliability and simplicity, especially for larger solutions. In comparison to Dell, we prefer Pure for its user-friendliness. Overall, I would rate the product as a seven out of ten.

We use Pure FlashArray for storing all of our data in a machine for storage purposes.

The input and output speed is crucial for us since we use it solely for storage without any special functions. We are satisfied with the performance as it is significantly faster compared to traditional storage options.

Maybe the price can be reduced since the solution is very expensive.

I have been working with FlashArray for about four to five years.

I would rate the stability of the product at seven out of ten, as sometimes there are minor glitches.

I also rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

We did not contact technical support from Pure Storage.

Neutral

AWS, Dell, and HPE are possible competitors. From my perspective, Pure is better than Dell since it is cheaper.

The initial setup was simple.

We performed the setup in-house with our team.

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