Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

Pure Storage Flash Array is used for data storage.

Pure Storage Flash Array has helped my organization by having the ability to have access to our data immediately.

The most valuable feature of the Pure Storage Flash Array is the blazing fast monitoring. 

The price of the solution can improve.

I have been using Pure Storage Flash Array for approximately seven years.

Pure Storage Flash Array is highly stable.

The scalability of the Pure Storage Flash Array is good and it is easy to do.

We have approximately 2,000 users in my enterprise that are using the solution. The whole company is using the solution.

The support from Pure Storage Flash Array is amazing. I have never seen a vendor support a product this well. They knew challenges even before my team was able to figure them out.

We were using another solution previously and we switch to Pure Storage Flash Array because we wanted the latest and greatest solution.

The initial setup of the Pure Storage Flash Array was of a medium range of difficulty. It was not easy or difficult. The full deployment was not very difficult.

I rate the initial setup of the Pure Storage Flash Array a two out of five.

We use a consultant from Pure for the implementation of the Pure Storage Flash Array.

We have seen a return on investment from using Pure Storage Flash Array.

The price of the Pure Storage Flash Array is too high and there needs to be more contact clarity. We went with the Evergreen plan and I don't have clarity on what am I supposed to pay each year or every three years. There was not much contract clarity.

We evaluated every solution at the time before we chose Pure Storage Flash Array.

My advice to others is to evaluate the Pure Storage Flash Array. Do a proof of concept if you can it is a fantastic solution.

I rate Pure Storage Flash Array a ten out of ten.

With Pure Storage FlashArray we have been able to deploy several thousand VDI servers, virtual machines, very quickly and efficiently. We were also are able to virtualize 80% of our workload, and we are planning to get 90 to 94% of our workload virtual. That's a huge reduction in the cost of hardware.

What I like most about this solution is that it is simple to bring in, install, and get it going. You can get it installed in a few days.

What's more, the compression ratio that we're getting is that our database portion is pretty high, so it saves a lot of money.

We have had no issues with the stability so far.

The solution is very scalable because it is fairly smooth and easy to upgrade. 

The technical support has been pretty good. The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing.

Pure was the first solution we used and now we use a couple more. One of them is an EMC product and then we also have a new start-up called Vector, so we currently use three solutions.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward and the integration was very easy to do. There were no hidden features and the GUI was very straightforward. 

Traditionally we have been buying massive storing arrays from EMC and from Hitachi, but most of them were built for very high tier applications. For VDI with your desktop, you really don't need that so it was easier for us to go for an array that used high-speed devices, providing Hadoop capabilities because the nature of your desktops are literally the same. So we needed to look at newer technology, and this really was one of the first ones to be there, and it was very popular. We did a study on the market and found that VR was one of the leaders in this space, so we brought them in.

We ran into some issues with the program at first and we had to work around those issues to fix our problems. So at the end of the day, it wasn't really a smooth ride. It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure. That's why I would give it an eight or a nine out of ten. But definitely not a 10.

We use the solution on-premises and each array has a different use case. We have VDI, SQL, and General and the program provide better integration between the management and visibility of the solution. Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integration developed by Parrot and this gives us a lower level administrative access to more admins that don't have a background in storage.

VMware is extremely beneficial to our IT organization because we can scale as we increase our usage.

The solution has great efficiencies because it has scalability. It also becomes the core between our synergy of all our platform systems across the United States.

In the next release of the solution, I would like to see Vormetric native block encryption.

The solution is rock solid. Very stable.

The scalability of the solution is extremely costly.

The technical support is fair and the team was helpful.

We previously used Hitachi, 3PAR, and HP but we had performance limitations.

The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply plug it in and turn it on.

An initial return on investment is easily visible. But scalability to the cost doesn't really show the investment costs. We're investing too heavy on the cost without seeing the value of the array or the efficiencies.

I am not sure what the costs for the solution are but it is embedded in the solution support.

I rate this solution eight out of ten because I saw a lot of growth beyond the performance capabilities. I do, however, want to see improved costs, integration, and encryption. Those are the big ones.

My advice to others would be to use your pre-sale targets as the layouts, as well as all your mitigated controls and requirements. Then forecast the capacity and performance metrics prior to your purchase.

It provides better performance for our desktops.

It has positively affected our space requirements.

We have reduced the time involved in managing and administrating our storage.

We haven't done as much capacity planning as we should have. I am sure it would help us.

The most valuable feature is its performance.

The solution’s inline deduplication and compression are very good.

The upgrade architecture is very good.

Our data reduction rates, latency, and availability are all good.

The stability is very good. The stability and performance are the best things about the solution.

The scalability is very good.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have undergone an upgrade of firmware.

We have seen a reduction in TCO.

The cost has room for improvement.

Our Evergreen Storage subscription is supposed to be good when we go to upgrade.

We did an evaluation of Dell EMC, Pure Storage, and NetApp.

I would recommend trying it. We like the product, and it works well.

We use it as reliable storage.

The virtual machines hosted on this storage are much faster. It boots so quickly that it is almost inconvenient.

The solution has probably reduced my power use substantially.

Reliability and performance are its most valuable feature.

Its ability to simplify storage is great.

I look at the performance metrics periodically, which are spectacular.

The stability is tremendous.

The scalability is great.

The technical support is great.

We were previously using a NAS, and it was not performing.

The initial setup was straightforward. I had done the preparation first. I had a good relationship with the presales engineer. It went as expected.

We did use an integrator for the deployment, and our experience with them was good.

We have not seen a reduction in our TCO nor have we seen ROI.

We have an Evergreen Storage subscription, which I think is a great feature.

It is an excellent choice, if you can afford it.

We evaluated Tegile, Dell EMC, and Pure Storage. We chose Pure Storage for performance and cost reasons.

We have integrated the solution with VMware and vCenter. It went well.

The solution’s inline deduplication and compression works fine.

I don't have the need for the predictive performance analytics.

The company seems to be engineering oriented, and I appreciate that.

It's very good storage for what we use it for, very efficient. It's very cost-effective for the amount of data we have when we're crunching the numbers that we're crunching, for our algorithms which use a lot of processing power.

The time-to-market could be better at times, but I think that's true for all vendors of hardware.

We've never had an issue with scale as we've deployed to some of our clients.

Depending on the deployment, the configuration, and the size of the project, and some of our larger machine-learning deployments, where we have to put in an AI-ready infrastructure box, those projects tend to take a little bit longer. It's a newer product and they're still figuring all that out. But it's comparable to any other vendor up there.

ROI depends on what the clients are looking for as the outcome. If the client doesn't know what the questions are that they need to ask in machine-learning, they can spend a lot of money and get really poor outcomes based on the data and what they're trying to get out of it. That isn't really a Pure issue, it's more a business issue in terms of the outcome wanted by the client.

Pricing is very competitive, and it's better than other competitors, as we've looked at some of the other competitors on the market. Pure, for the quality of gear we're getting versus the price, is a good value for us.

One of the "buyer beware" issues would be, if you're going to buy a $1.5 million installment of Aries, which is the NVIDIA, it's got a high cost. If you just need a cucumber cart to be pulled on wheels, you don't need to buy a jet plane, although the seller might say, "Hey, this is the best, greatest, and newest." These are some of the things that you'd want to be aware of as someone who is looking to get into AI. Make sure you need that much because you could probably build a scaled-down version at a significantly lower cost.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. Pure is a partner of ours that we use for a lot of our machine-learning deployments and some of our smart-data applications which we build in Canada. We pursue the same clients together for some of the government contracts, and we use the FlashBlade for some of the storage for our machine-learning algorithms, with the NVIDIA DGX. We're exclusive to Pure, versus the other hardware vendors who are in the same place for flash storage. This is who we use and who we decided to go with, due to some of the innovation that they have within their stack.

In Canada, they've got a very good strategy where they're partnering with some of the good software vendors there, and they're making good relationships on the government side and with some of the VARs. They're doing a good job.

Everything is kosher with the documentation. They've been fantastic, a good partner supporting our pursuits. They have even delivered some prototypes for us, before we started using them, to some of our vendors. That way, we could have a sandbox where we could use some of their storage to create demos and proofs of concept for some of our clients.

What I like most about this solution is the simplicity of the array.

The speed of the Pure FlashArray is very, very fast and nothing in the market can compare to it.

The education, compression, and the speed to perform these are astonishing.

The array is really resilient.

The price of this solution is high and should be lowered.

It is not possible to create a cluster on top of multiple arrays.

I have been working with Pure Storage for about three years.

The stability of the Pure FlashArray is 100%.

With respect to scalability, it would be nice to create a LAN or a cluster on top of multiple arrays.

The technical support is 100% and they respond really quickly. Their Evergreen support plan is astonishing. They are a leader in this regard.

I have worked with similar solutions from IBM and NetApp. The advantage to those solutions is that you can create a LAN on top of multiple arrays.

The price of this solution is high.

With respect to comparing other solutions, when you put all of the features in a box, leverage them and migrate your application to one of these arrays, it will give you a lot of benefits. Some people have compared benchmark performance tests against other arrays and from my point of view, overall as a whole package when you sum everything up, Pure Storage is the winner.

Overall, this is a very good solution and my main complaint is about the price. Out of all of the arrays that I have worked with, Pure Storage is one of the better ones.

I highly recommend both the solution and the company. My suggestion to anybody who is considering this product is to do the mathematics regarding the budget and the price really well because the rate can be expensive when it comes to upgrading in the future, either scaling it up or out.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is for any server and database that has high I/O demands on disk.

It is noticeably easier to manage than other appliances that we have.

Our Pure Storage unit is really small, so we just move what we have to it.

• Speed
• Scalability
• The cost

We do have an issue with the vCenter integration. Pure Storage says it has a lot of free space, but vCenter says its completely full. This is because their dedupes are saved as space, but Vcenter still detects the disk as completely full. So, we do have an issue with that. Therefore, we would like to see improvements with the way it integrates with vCenter for picking up dedupe.

The stability is good. It hasn't gone down since we've had it.

From what we've been told, it looks like it would be really scalable if we purchased more. The licensing and scalability patterns are really cost-effective. We don't have to rebuy things in different tiers to just continue on, so we like that.

The technical support is really good. They are really responsive. For the call that we had, we had a call back within 15 to 20 minutes.

We noticed a dramatic increase in application performance when moving it from NetApp to Pure Storage.

Pure Storage seemed more cost-effective than NetApp. When we did our POC, we saw big performance gains between all-flash on NetApp and all-flash on Pure Storage. It was significantly better.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. They set it all up for us.

They pretty much manage the firmware upgrades for us, and they've gone well so far.

We dealt directly with Pure Storage engineers for the deployment, and our experience was good.

We have seen a reduction in total cost of ownership.

It is cheaper than NetApp.

There were several vendors we looked at. We also looked at Nimble, but we did not do at PoC of them.

We just liked the way Pure was pitched to us overall.

Get a PoC and see how it works out for you. See if you see an improvement with your apps and go from there.

We really like it. It is really speedy.