Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

We primarily use the solution for storage. 

The administration is very easy and quite minimal.

The performance is very good.

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

Technical support is good.

Beyond a certain amount of petabytes, you have to have a separate system. Basically, it's not infinitely scalable. 

We've been using the solution in two places. We have used it in Washington for six months and London for six months as well. 

We have found the solution to be stable. We've not had any performance issues and not have any stability issues with it. The performance is good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution is scalable to an extent. Its deduplication ratio is quite good. You don't actually always need the full amount of physical storage, as opposed to the deduplicating amount of space.

Its scalability beyond a certain amount of petabytes makes it so that it is a separate system if you scale to that much storage. If you're a normal enterprise where you don't scale that much, it's fine. The X90 goes beyond a certain amount, and you have to have a new system that works as a separate system.

Across two locations, we have about 800 people. 

From the feedback I've gotten, for the most part, the technical support has been quite good. They know their product quite well and they've been quite responsive. We are satisfied with the support.

We previously used EMC VNX.

The solution is pretty straightforward. It's not too complex or difficult. 

I haven't personally deployed it, however, from the team's feedback, they had very little issues with regards to the deployment and bringing it up and then setting up. The deployment was within days or a week at a maximum. That was for the migration time. For migrating from the old storage to new, it might take a while, however, in terms of getting it up and running, it was days. It didn't take that long at all.

It's easy enough that the normal system administrators can take care of the storage. There's no one dedicated to managing the storage and it's not that complicated that it needs someone dedicated just to manage it all.

You do have a license that is required and you also have to pay for support.

The license we have is not a monthly subscription model.

For London and Washington, we had EMC VNX. At the time we were transitioning from the EMC to a mid-tier flash storage, and they didn't have anything in the market. We did look at others. We looked at the Nimble from HPE. When we were looking to purchase, EMC just came out with EMC FlashSystem. We didn't get to the IBM FlashSystem. 

We're a customer and an end-user.

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

We use virtual servers on there.

We have tons of capacity on it.

It is fast and reliable. It works. 

For three years, we haven't had any trouble with it. It is reliable. Once it is installed, off it goes.

The scalability is handy. You can just add more drives. They automatically synchronize. You don't have to do anything but snap them in there. It is pretty easy.

I can't even remember dealing with technical support. 

We had tons of old physical servers and needed the storage room. It was more cost-effective to set this solution up for running our VM environment off it.

The solution is bigger and faster than what we had before.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward and simple. 

We used Compunet for the deployment. Our experience with them was good.

The solution has reduced our power usage.

The solution could be cheaper.

There should be quite a bit of reduction of TCO with just licensing (and stuff) because we run the VM environment off it.

I would recommend to go with this solution.

We have integrated the solution with VMware, and the process was seamless. We've never had any trouble with it.

Flash drives make an amazing difference.

The primary use case is to run SAP applications on top of the flash solutions.

SAP is very important to our business. It's a key function. We are running ERP and CRM systems. Our systems run on-premise.

Running SAP on Pure Storage helps a lot without doing any further tuning to improve application performance. Our internal clients are happy.

The most valuable feature is the performance of Pure Storage underneath and that many applications, which are already integrated with it. I can use the system applications, e.g., for backup restore. Therefore, I don't need to buy them in addition to the product, as they are already part of the solution.

It helps to simplify storage, especially because we can do in-place upgrades and can grow on demand. I can pay on demand, so it helps me to simplify the usage of the storage.

It is super stable.

It has even improved the performance of SAP HANA.

The scalability is already there in both directions. You can scale the storage, as well as the compute.

The technical support comes out of one single stop. It is very helpful to have one single number to contact.

The initial setup was straightforward and simple.

Our HANA installation was a greenfield. So, we started the Pure Storage system with HANA.

We used a partner (integrator) for the deployment. We used Tech Data. Everything was based on design guides and reference architecture, our experience was very good.

There is some benefit in regard to total cost of ownership, because it's a condensed system. It saves a lot of space in the data center, saving power.

Pure Storage has not helped to reduce our HANA licensing costs.

I am pretty happy with the solution, as it is currently.

We use it just for test purposes in our organization.

Data deduplication is one feature I found to be the most valuable in the tool. We don't use any special features in our organization.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for about six years. Also, I am using Pure Storage FA-420. I am a customer of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I can't comment on the solution's scalability since we use it in a test environment. From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable. It is only me who is using the solution in our company.

The solution's initial setup process was easy. It may look like a lot of work, but it is easy.

The solution is expensive.

It is an old storage we use for testing, and our production storage is IBM. It will be five years old since we are using the solution. We are also planning to buy a new storage solution. So, we are looking out into the market to see what we can buy.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it since I trust it is a great storage solution.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We are using Pure Storage FlashArray for VMware data storage.

The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are management and administration user-friendliness, provisioning, and performance.

Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for approximately one year.

Pure Storage FlashArray is highly stable.

Pure Storage FlashArray is scalable, but it has a 5 GB ratio for data which helps with the reduced need for more investment for it to be more scalable.

We are using the solution with approximately 20 VMware hosts.

I previously used other solutions.

The initial setup of Pure Storage FlashArray is straightforward. The time it took for our complete implementation took one week. However, it could be done in one day but we had some challenges.

We used the Pure Storage FlashArray team to do the implementation.

I recommend this solution for production because it has good performance and capacity management. 

My advice to others is they need to fit the solution to their needs. There are many models available and the one they choose is going to depend on the front-end data that they're going to accommodate in storage. Additionally, the latencies needed are important to consider, such as how many milliseconds they can tolerate and overall performance.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

Pure Storage has been the go-to storage array for me. It's a lot smaller, easier to set up, faster to upgrade, and more reliable. 

The performance is very stable. This is something which I don't get out of a solution such as, for example, 3PAR. 

The code upgrades are very smooth. They're actually all tracking their vulnerabilities. As a customer, Pure Storage gives sufficient time to the customer to showcase the new features and to say this is how to go about going over to the upgrade, and so on. We are quite prepared. We can schedule ahead and be ready for these things. That's something which I like - the selective approach - and everything is on the cloud which helps Pure reach out to their customers and gives these new features. 

Its ability to use multiple services such as the file services, the block services, backup, fast backups, lightning backup, and so on, is great. These features are something that StoreServ or HP doesn't have. They have multiple products for that. Pure tries to bundle them together. That's something which I really like. It reduces the footprint and helps me sell this a lot more to the customer.

Pure Storage support could be a little better. 

The pricing can be a bit high.

In general, I'm quite satisfied with what product they have on offer, and what new features are being released.

I've used the solution for a while. 

The stability is good. The performance on offer is excellent. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Technical support needs improvement.

With respect to them being able to respond, they're more marketing people, less technical. Some of these technical SMEs who I've worked with on Pure Storage, they're really good. However, overall, some accounts still have that thing in their mind that the support isn't as great as some of the bigger companies like Dell or HPE.

That said, that's not the experience for me.

I've also used 3PAR. Performance on Pure Storage is a lot faster than 3PAR.

The initial setup is easy. It's also quick to upgrade. A company shouldn't have issues with the process.

They're okay with the pricing. They're expensive compared to some of the hyperscalers today. When it comes to a private cloud, enterprise-class, where we're looking at highly encrypted, high-performance, highly reliable systems. I might not go with Pure. If I can go with the data center class, I can go with Pure Storage. For enterprise-class, I would still lean back to Hitachi or Dell.

We are partners.

Most of my accounts have multiple storage arrays, and Pure Storage always happened to be one of them.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with it overall.

My primary use case of this solution is array management. 

FlashArray has many valuable features. It's very user-friendly and it has high availability, so there is comparatively less downtime. During maintenance, there is no shutdown procedure, so you can directly power off the Array and manage the shutdown process without any data loss, which is a unique feature. Managing replication and data migration is also very easy. 

FlashArray's capacity for forecasting should be improved because it needs to be a bit more current. I think it's bundled with the deduplication and other compression factors. We need more user interfaces for forecasting in this software and more interfaces need to be integrated with this array management tool. 

I have been working with FlashArray for the past two years. 

Compared to other products, this solution is more stable. We haven't had any performance issues. Oracle RAC and most of the Microsoft applications perform well on the block storage. 

This solution is easy to scale. 

FlashArray is best suited to a large company. We provide any kind of hosting service in our region, so we have multiple customers hosted in our data center. The environment is large and we have more than 25 different customers and terabytes of data. 

I'm satisfied with the support. Comparatively, it matches with Windows. I don't see any difference in the levels of technical support. 

The initial configuration, the base configuration, is really simple. Compared to other products, it's really easy. The racking and stacking will take time, but that has more to do with the data center operations, not specifically the Pure Storage configuration. I'll say this: once the base configuration of the storage array is connected with those cables, once the IP is assigned, the setup process won't take long. It won't take more than 30 to 45 minutes to complete the base configuration, and then it will be ready for provisioning the contract data. 

We implemented through an in-house team. We are the service providers in this region, so we did it ourselves. We only engage vendors and their local partners if there is any hardware issue or hardware replacement we need delivered. 

I think that the pricing is less expensive compared to other standard products in the market today. Even the support contract and maintenance services cost less when compared to market-leading products like EMC.  

Overall, this is a good product and I would recommend it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for Pure Storage is for disaster recovery.

We use AWS for our cloud provider.

It's fast because it's Flash storage so the IT team doesn't have to worry about it.

Besides virtualization and the benefits associated with that, we're a Workspace ONE customer, we're going to be starting that deployment Q4 of this year and we're looking forward to improving the patient experience with the doctors and the rest of the medical staff.

We are delivering a better experience for doctors and the other staff that deliver desirable outcomes. Again, it's easy on the IT staff. It's important to have infrastructure that you can rely on and not have to worry about failing.

We use SRM for VMware integration. The failovers with SRM are fantastic. It's fast and reliable. It just works, which is sometimes difficult to achieve.

The white glove customer service that I get is their greatest value. They even do the firmware upgrades for me. I don't have to worry about it.

The capability from Pure as far as sharing out files and things of that nature is a little bit lacking. However, I know it's coming so I'm not upset that it doesn't exist yet.

Their stability is second to none.

I'm confident it will grow as the hospital grows.

When I started at my current employer, our SAN was eight years old and out of support. It was very urgent that we replaced it immediately.

The initial setup was straightforward. Plug it in, then they show up to do the firmware upgrade. We connected the fiber channel, we put it on the network and within two hours we were moving workloads over.

We bought it from a reseller but we did the installation and design ourselves in-house.

We have received a return on our investment.

I have used NetApp, IBM, and EMC XtremIO in the past. We selected Pure because of its reputation. We also considered vSAN, but we ultimately went with Pure because of the ability to do things that vSAN couldn't do at the time. It has since changed. I don't know if that would change my mind about going with Pure, but I don't regret the decision.

Depending on their EMR, Pure is certified to work with many vendors including EPIC and MEDITECH, and they're a fantastic partner. Even from pre-sale to post-sales, I'm always in contact with the folks at VMware and Pure. They address any issues, problems, or questions I have. Their ability to help is endless.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. When the file services are available on Pure, it will absolutely be a ten.