Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

Our database administrators had to run some manual process twice a week since the disk performance of our previous storage unit was not able to respond to the requests fast enough.

This process took approximately four hours and it had to be done manually twice a week by the DBAs. After the implementation, the time to run the process was reduced to minutes and it did not require any manual intervention from our DBAs.

Performance, deduplication, compression, and fast response time for requests from servers and applications.

I have not been able to find one yet.

We did, but it was partially due to our environment. We were running outdated firmware in the HBAs for our HPE Blade Servers and an old version of vSphere that it is not supported by VMware.

We decided to keep these servers under with the previous storage array to avoid disconnects and system outages.

No, the unit that we bought contains 40TB of usable space and we are using 10TB so far.

Technical support is great. They will dive in deep with your team to figure out what is causing the problem for them and find the root cause.

I wish they could collaborate more with the other vendors internally, instead of us opening cases with Cisco, HPE, VMware, etc.

We have another platform using spinning disk 600GB 15K RPM SAS drives, but our applications and servers have grown so much that the storage was getting saturated with the requests from the applications.

We discussed the option to add more SAS disk and memory to the controllers of that array versus buying a Solid State Drive Array (SSDA).

We concluded that it would be more beneficial for our company to invest in an SSDA, and the results paid off.

The initial setup was straightforward and very easy to implement, as long as you have all the information that you need ahead of time.

For instance, IP addresses, iSCSI IPs and adapters, switch configurations and ports enabled, etc.

The price seems fair according to the market. We analyzed multiple All-Flash Arrays (AFA) in the market, but Pure came at the top in many areas.

The price was slightly higher than others, but competitive, if you consider all the other features that you get from it. I love the Evergreen model to replace any parts after three years with a newer part as part of your support contract. The licensing is based on your capacity.

We researched other products from Kaminario, NetApp SolidFire, Nimble Storage, EMC XtremeIO, and HPE.

I always recommend a company to start with a proof of concept. That way, you can test your applications directly with the unit. It is critical to get a baseline of the before with your current storage array and after with an SSDA or an AFA.

Our primary use case for this solution is focused on enterprise solutions, a support solution that needs either performance, reliability or cost. For example, most companies have databases, virtualized workloads, or VDI workloads. So with those kinds of environments like the Block Storage, it is perfect because it switches very well with the cost, performance, and reliability ratio. Additionally, it's easy to deploy to benefit the IT team in the management costs.

We find the ease of usability and setup valuable.

Pricing could be better in comparison to other solutions. The amount of storage the customers receive is approximately 20% higher when you compare it with similar solutions. So it can be a problem when you are positioning the product.

We have been using the solution for seven years as partners and are currently working with the latest version.

The solution is highly scalable, but scalability is sometimes undervalued, but everyone can scale. In the case of Pure Storage FlashArray, our experience with upgrading the capacity only involved changing the controllers. So, for example, if you have 20 terabytes and want to go to 100, you only have to change the controllers when paying for that storage capacity upgrade. You can also include the controllers, and the controllers' upgrade does not impact production. You can do it without stopping, so the upgrade of the machines can start with the smallest to the biggest machine that can deploy up to five petabytes. If you cannot do it smoothly, you don't have to stop production and will not have a disruption.

Our experience with customer service and support has been very good. It is very good even though they are still growing, and they are very responsive to issues. They promise a 15-minute response time and are very good at keeping that promise.

The initial setup is straightforward. Two engineers are usually tasked with deployment.

Our return on investment is good.

The licensing cost is close to zero. Every new function or functionality is included when paying the annual maintenance. Our customers value it because the maintenance is always the same regardless of whether it's the first year, the seventh or the tenth year. Additionally, the products use the same operative system with new capabilities, like ransomware and safe mode. Another thing that is quite nice to have is outstanding performance. They can provide a lot of performance, so there is not a lot of difference. Still, efficiency is something customers value because the compression can be up to twice of the second competitor. I rate licensing costs a ten out of ten.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by improving upgrade prices.

We primarily use the solution for storage. 

It has improved the way our organization functions by improving the resilience of our infrastructure by quite a bit. 

The tool size is good. We have a tool size and then each size has one Pure Storage and they form the active cluster. We can just access the data on both sides with a uniform access design.

The scalability is good.

It can do some replications. They're very easy to perform. 

We're quite happy with eh solution overall. I can't recall coming across any features that were lacking. 

There was some complexity in the initial setup.

While they've improved a lot, many features have been released recently and they are not that mature just yet. My understanding is they just released some features, for some transport services over the NVMe and then the file service. However, the file service is not so mature. I had some problems with the file service when we used it. 

Other new features, such as the active clustering over the FC, and the verification over the FC feature, we didn't use. We have to have a trial on it first before commenting on it.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

It's very, very, very stable. There are no performance degrades during any upgrade or replacement of the parts. 

The product is extremely scalable. 

There is only one person using the solution currently. 

I've dealt with technical support previously. Their response is fast and mostly very, very helpful. We just need to enable the remote console on the array and then they just can easily troubleshoot by themselves. That way, we do not need more time to work with them. They just fix the problem for us.

We also use HPE Nimble. This solution scales much better. That said, it is a bit more complex to implement when you compare it to Nimble. 

There are two different classes in our design. We put more critical applications on Pure due to its stability and resilience. Less important or less critical applications or servers are on Nimble. However, the capacity of Nimble is far larger than Pure Storage.

The initial setup is more complex than the Nimble. Mostly the configurations must be done by the Pure engine at the back end.

It took two or three weeks to deploy the solution.

You only need one person to deploy and maintain the solution.

We handled the initial setup by ourselves. We did not need any outside assistance from any integrators or consultants. 

With Pure Storage, we buy the array and then all the features can be enabled on that.

It is more expensive than Nimble. The price is likely double Nimble's.

You do not have to pay for any extra features or add-ons. Everything is included. 

I'm a customer.

We use the Pure Array X model with a version of Purity 5. Recently, we bought the Pure C series.

We use it with a private cloud and on-premises as well.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Pure Storage FlashArray is applicable for virtual environments, e.g. CSS, VR, and YouTube platforms. It's an NVMe data storage platform.

One of the things I like about Pure Storage FlashArray is that it has a high data reduction average, e.g. 4.5.

Pure Storage FlashArray is also advantageous for data centers in terms of rack space for maximum capacity.

Many high-end platforms from other vendors like Dell EMC or Hitachi, their backend has Active/Active architecture, unlike Pure Storage FlashArray which doesn't utilize an Active/Active architecture on the backend. Instead, it has an Active/Passive architecture. Its frontend is Active/Active, but its backend is not. I see this as a disadvantage of this product.

The highest storage capacity of Pure Storage FlashArray is the petabyte, and it should be expanded. This is what I'd like to see in the next release.

This product is stable. It's working very well. Our elementary response time is 0.5 milliseconds, and with 100,000 IOPS in our virtual environments.

The technical support for Pure Storage FlashArray is good. Support is quick and responsible. We get quick responses from the team.

The initial setup for Pure Storage FlashArray was easy. It was completed within one hour.

Pure Storage FlashArray was implemented by a local product solutions team.

I'm working for a telecommunication company, and we use different products.

We have five people in our company working with this product.

My advice to people who want to implement Pure Storage FlashArray is that it's a good NVMe solution, has a lower response time, and also good for entry-level storage purposes, e.g. small offices, small to medium-sized business, etc. It's also easy to use, e.g. comparable to an iPhone in terms of ease of use. This solution also works very well on the Active/Active version, for combining two storage.

I'm giving Pure Storage FlashArray a score of nine out of ten.

I use the solution for the storage of our database and to run some algorithms to analyze data we retrieve from the internet.

I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand.

Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is highly stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have five customers using this solution.

The technical support is very good.

The installation is the simplest I have ever done from any solution.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves with the supervision of the integrator.

We have a team that does the maintenance and operations of the solution.

There is an annual or perpetual license required for this solution.

I am very satisfied with this solution and I would recommend it to others.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We use Pure Storage FlashArray in a couple of backup products. Our DDP offerings, data platform offerings, is where we use Veritas with Pure Storage FlashArray. Then, we use the Pure Azure Service model with the secure multi-tenancy features. Pure Storage FlashArray can be managed centrally.

In individual file cases where most customers were looking for performance-based, minimum latency applications, we have deployed Pure Storage FlashArray.

The integration and migration features have been really good.

We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray.

It has an Evergreen model and always maintains the controllers, so the controllers never let you down.

I think replication is one area that still needs improvement. Earlier, Pure Storage FlashArray only had IP-based replication. There was no API-based replication, but they have enhanced the feature now. However, they need to work on API replication for C-type of arrays.

It would be good if Pure Storage FlashArray gave a library-type access.

Maybe, small box releases could be utilized for backup purposes such as Data Domain offered by other vendors.

I've been using Pure Storage FlashArray for the last two and a half years.

We have deployed it both on-premises and on hybrid cloud environments.

As for stability, Pure Storage FlashArray is definitely a reliable solution.

It can be easily scaled. I work with over 500 customers who use this solution.

The technical support is awesome, and there's a lot of documentation available online.

The initial setup is very easy.

My organization has a yearly license, but I believe that Pure Storage FlashArray has capacity-based licenses as well. I'm definitely happy with the pricing.

I think with other products, there are issues with support systems and warranty features. Even the maintenance cost can be very high. In comparison to those products, Pure Storage FlashArray is very good.

Overall, Pure Storage FlashArray has never let us down in front of customers so far, and I would rate this solution at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Our primary use for this solution is storage. We have a private cloud deployment.

Using this solution has improved our consolidation ratio and it saves us a lot of space. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is the support.

This solution is easy to use.

The price of this solution could be improved.

So far, the stability of this solution has been really good.

The scalability of this solution is really good.

Technical support for this solution is excellent.

Prior to this solution, we were using the IBM Storage Network. The support was not very good, and the feature set was very limited.

We needed something that was simpler to manage and maintain.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

We used an integrator for our deployment, and our experience with them was good.

In terms of space savings, we were able to save a lot of money.

We evaluated a second IBM-based storage solution, and after that, Pure was the second one that we looked at. We heard so many good things about it that we leaned towards that way.

Using VMware has improved our IT organization by providing a stable virtualization platform.

We are running VMware on Pure, which was driven by our interest in consolidation. It has helped us by saving space over using less dense storage.

We have the Pure plug-in for the VMware environment. It has helped us with information monitoring.

For anybody comparing this solution to similar products, my advice is to look into the numbers. This product is definitely worth the price, and it is easy to use.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use it for VMware virtualization.

We have VDIs, virtual desktops, which users log into every day. On the old storage, they would sometimes have three, four, or five-minute delays; it just because useless for five minutes. They couldn't do anything when they were logged in, because of the slowness. Now, with Pure Storage, we have totally eliminated that problem. This was the primary reason we purchased it and it has performed very well. We're very pleased.

It has helped simplify our storage. It's small, it's fast, and it's very simple to manage.

In one of our arrays we had a 35-to-1 data reduction, which is very outstanding. Not many places have that kind of benefit.

We like the speed. It's very low latency. In virtualization, you can mask lots of problems, and even in code you can mask lots of problems, with low latency. It's just pure speed and low latency.

We also like the compactness, the small footprint. It takes up very little space in a data center and uses little power.

Finally, we love the predictive performance analytics. It's an excellent tool. It's something we were asking for in the past. When they rolled it out, it made a difference.

We would like to see more cloud support, which we know is coming, although it's not out yet. It's going to be released in the next versions. That would be the biggest win, if additional cloud support is built into the array.

Both the stability and scalability are excellent. It's a very stable environment.

You can scale easily. You can extend it online, change controllers online. Scalability gets five out five stars.

Technical support is very good. We are very pleased with support. We think that it's probably one of the best vendors we work with, as far as support goes; compared to NetApp, for example. Pure storage support people are very responsive and knowledgeable.

The old systems we had were just not doing the job, so we knew we had to change.

It was very easy to set it up. No complexity at all.

We deployed it ourselves.

We haven't analyzed it in terms of numbers, but we have definitely seen a very good ROI. There has been a reduction in our total cost of ownership.

We looked at Pure Storage vs Dell EMC, but we thought Pure Storage has newer, better technology developed from the ground up, whereas Dell EMC is a patchwork solution. In addition, the price was more favorable.

Give it a try. Get a system in on a trial basis, make a deal, and try it to see if it's something you can use.

I rate Pure Storage at ten out of ten. We're very satisfied with Pure Storage. They are a very good company, doing very good things.