The first year, we started out with one or five terabytes and it took what was 20 terabytes of storage down to less than one terabyte. Then we added another one and I think the total storage is five terabytes now.
The UI is pretty good.
The first year, we started out with one or five terabytes and it took what was 20 terabytes of storage down to less than one terabyte. Then we added another one and I think the total storage is five terabytes now.
The UI is pretty good.
It's absolutely a stable product.
It's scalable. We started with a very small storage array and now we're in a much larger one. I think we're up to 40 terabytes.
We only use tech support infrequently. We don't need to call them. It's easy to use, straightforward. Once it's set up, it does what we need it to do.
Price is about the only thing that's wrong with it. A little bit better pricing would be great. The client environment for a non-profit 501C3 organization makes it much harder for us to come up with the dollars and to cover the increased cost of hardware support, but we do like the way the product runs. It's perfect for us.
I would definitely recommend this product to a colleague because of what it can do. I've already done that. I've already referenced several other nonprofits, human service organizations, and long-term care facilities. We've spoken highly of Pure. For an organization, it can take storage from 40 terabytes down to five terabytes. It's excellent.
Our user base consists of 3,000 people but it takes just one person to manage it - ease of use.
Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on, and the biggest selling point for me was the replacement of the hardware, the controllers, without any major expense to the clinic.
I don't deal with the day-to-day management of it. I'm sure that, from a technical perspective, the ones who manage it would be able to tell about you something that needs improvement. From my perspective of the acquisition and ongoing support, I don't see any.
It's a stable product.
It's scalable. We've grown the product two or three times since we got it. We've actually purchased two more storage arrays since then that are not used for Epic, so we're expanding it. We'll be using this for many years in the future.
Tech support is helpful when needed.
We had multiple platforms beforehand. We had HPE, IBM.
To me, the installation is easy. I'm not the one who put it together, their techs came out and helped us. I don't remember anything momentous about it.
I'm good with the licensing. Of course, pricing can always be less. That's standard business. It's actually not a bad pricing model, considering I don't have to rip-and-replace. That's huge for me.
I would recommend this product to colleagues in the same field.
It makes life easier for me.
I rate the product at nine out of ten. We're very happy with it. We purchased the product for our Epic implementation. I had such minimal issues with it. Ten out of ten is a stretch, but it's pretty close. We're pretty happy.
We have bare-metal boxes now so we are thinking of going Cloud. We have to have a hybrid solution because we're closer to the financial industry and we have regulations that require us to have on-premise systems. In that case, we would go with Pure Storage.
Now we can store more for a cheaper price as opposed to paying for larger devices and larger rack spaces which get outdated sooner and which we'd have to change every two years. It simplifies storage for us.
There has been a reduction in the total cost of ownership. We did a cost analysis before buying Pure Storage. Now with Pure Storage, our developers work a lot faster and more efficiently which has definitely improved our productivity.
The most valuable features are the speed, cost, and that we get the best value for the money.
It is stable.
We switched solutions because we were looking to expand our storage and we looked at various options. We were having an issue with our previous solution in that we had to continuously upgrade solutions and had restrictions of creations of new environments.
We used an integrator for the deployment.
Dell EMC was another vendor we looked at.
I would rate this solution an eight. To make it a ten it would have to be a little cheaper. We want to restrict the data set that's required to be on-premise to be kept on-premise and the rest to be moved to the cloud so that we just pay for what we use.
If you're looking into Pure Storage I would definitely recommend Pure Storage if you have a need of having something on-premise.
The Pure Storage array houses our entire production environment. Production consists of VMware 5.5 on three HPE DL360 G7 hosts.
I don't really need to worry about storage anymore. I can focus on more critical issues. I log into the array interface maybe once every month to see what my deduplication ratio is and that is about it.
It is difficult to say what features are valuable. It is an SSD array that has awesome performance, low submillisecond latency, and does what it is supposed to do. It just works, which is difficult for things to do anymore.
I would like to see more detailed reporting on the data. Sure, it is great to see usage, trends, latency, and all the common stuff. However, it would be nice to know what are the exact VMs usage after deduplication and/or what that VMs actual latency and bandwidth is, outside of VMware.
For VDI, there's a consistent user experience. Users don’t switch to VDI if it's not at the same speed as a laptop or desktop, and Pure Storage provides that.
It doesn’t provide enough information on performance analytics. For example, Nimble Storage has Infosight, which provides data; Pure Storage doesn’t have an equivalent. It has every other feature, but more data would be the only thing missing.
No issues with deployment.
It's really good and we've never had problem.
Also, it's very simple to use, and one of our customers described it as, “If you know how to use Facebook, you know how to use Pure Storage.”
I think it's actually easier than Facebook.
It scales very well. A new box contains three units, and uses the power of a toaster oven.
We haven’t had to use it. We ran into some issues, but found their technical engineer not as good as Nimble Storage's.
The setup is easy, but not as easy as Nimble. It took about five hours to setup.
There's no additional licenses needed, as everything is included.
Once you try it, you’ll realize how easy it is to use. It has almost every feature.
Our customers primarily use Pure Storage for virtualization, whether it is VMware or Hyper-V. They choose Pure Storage for its high-performance, low-latency, and reliable all-flash arrays, which are essential for efficiently running virtualized workloads, including critical applications, databases, and virtual machines.
I find two features of Pure Storage most valuable. The first is the "safe mode" function, and the second is its simplicity. I value its simplicity and artificial intelligence monitoring. It also integrates seamlessly with major platforms like VMware, Microsoft Hyper-V, and Microsoft SQL, while offering tight integration with backup software for faster restores. This connectivity promotes cyber resilience and can be leveraged for disaster recovery solutions.
I don't see any major issues with Pure Storage, but one thing to note is that Pure Storage can be seen as a premium product, and other vendors are catching up in terms of performance and features. However, overall, the feature set and performance are excellent.
I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for two and a half years.
It is highly stable, especially if you follow recommended patching and software upgrades. Pure Storage offers an officially published uptime guarantee, ensuring device stability, which is legally binding.
Pure Storage is very scalable. Even the smallest model can be successfully upgraded all the way to the largest model, which is a feature I haven't seen with other solutions.
Pure Storage's tech support is excellent. They use AI effectively, and their support team is highly reliable and responsive. Our customers have experienced no issues with their support.
Setting up Pure Storage is incredibly easy. You just plug it in, connect it to the network, and start building your storage – it is that simple. Deployment takes less than a day. Deployment is straightforward and typically manageable by a single person or resource. However, when lifting heavier equipment, like the larger Pure Storage units, it is recommended to have two people, but the rest of the setup can be accomplished via servers. Maintenance is straightforward. Once it is connected to the internet and secure communication is enabled, it sends monitoring data to Kubernetes and artificial intelligence in the cloud, providing early warnings of potential issues. This cloud-based AI can often assess the health of your device better than you can.
Our customers see a return on investment and value for their money with Pure Storage. They measure it through methods like net present value and comparisons to the weighted accumulated cost of capital, which provide a robust financial assessment.
It has a flexible, pay-as-you-go option.The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations, but this is the only major downside.
My advice for new users is to not be afraid to start using it from day one, but take the time to educate yourself on all the valuable features available to make the most of it. Since it is a significant investment, ensure you manage and protect the asset effectively. Overall, I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray as a ten out of ten.
Pure Storage FlashArray is used for hosting applications, such as Vmware, HyperV, and virtualized applications.
The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is the all-flash storage performance, low latency, and efficiency of their de-duplication technology. Additionally, the ease of use is good compared to other storage systems. The features in data protection, snapshotting, and replication between data centers and sites are superior to other solutions.
Pure Storage FlashArray could improve the recent file storage capabilities because it is lacking a lot of features.
The integration with other vendors, such as antivirus and security vendors they are lacking.
I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for approximately seven years.
The stability of Pure Storage FlashArray is good.
Pure Storage FlashArray is scalable.
I have used the support from Pure Storage FlashArray.
I rate the support from Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.
Positive
The initial setup of Pure Storage FlashArray is very simple and it takes four hours for a new system.
Pure Storage FlashArray is not difficult to maintain.
My customers have received a return on investment.
The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could always improve. They are still more expensive than some alternative offerings. Cost is always a concern and when there is a battle they tend to be more expensive.
There are no licenses outside of the storage. When you buy the solution, you receive all the software capabilities and license with the box.
One of the advantages of Pure Storage FlashArray to other solutions is the Evergreen Program. The program allows you to never have to purchase storage that you already purchased again. For every terabyte that you purchase, you don't have to purchase it again, they will replace it. As you maintain the solution, even if the old storage becomes at the end of life, it will replace with newer technology as part of the maintenance.
My advice to others is they should try the solution, it works well.
I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.
It's the back-end storage for all our virtual environments.
The performance is great.
The predictive performance analytics are good.
It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them.
It has been scalable so far.
We have also used NetApp, but not for all-flash. This is our first all-flash solution.
We were looking for an all-flash solution, and Pure Storage is the best solution right now.
Just give it a try.
I'm an happy Pure User, and after 2 non-disruptive upgrade I agree with this comment, the bad side is the reporting (used space, performance etc.)