Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

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.

My rating of Pure Storage is a ten out of ten because of the price for performance and footprint - the overall value.

There's always an opportunity for new feature functionality. It's just a question of what that will be and what does the future look like?

It's very much a stable product.

It is absolutely scalable to our company's needs.

We've used tech support and we have found it to be very favorable.

The implementation process was seamless. It was very quick. It took less than a week to deploy.

The return on investment is good, very strong.

In comparison to the competitors, Pure is very price-competitive for the future functionality that it provides.

We considered Dell EMC, we looked at Nutanix, Cohesity, IBM, HPE. We ran quite a bit of the gamut.

I would absolutely recommend this product to a colleague. We have no regrets.

We have one person who administers it. We have about 9,000 employees and the IT department has about 300.

We have a lot of MEDITECH electronic health records systems running on it, as well as some other ancillary applications, but it's core hospital EHR, predominantly.

We've seen a significant reduction in the total cost of ownership. When we bought this product, the arrays that it replaced were just shy of about $1,000,000 apiece and they were the size of big refrigerators. The product that we replaced them with is a couple of rack units, like the size of a stack of a couple of pizza boxes, consuming way less power. There was a dramatic improvement in operating costs just as a result of the environmentals and space, let alone the cost of the unit itself.

Everything could be cheaper. Other areas where we would always like to see improvement with products like this are in compression and deduplication. Increasing the overall storage efficiency of the platform would be great.

One thing I'd like to see in a future release is integration between their main storage array and what they call their FlashBlade product; to be able to snapshot directly from the primary array into multiple different backup copies on FlashBlade. That would be an intriguing and interesting feature for us. Other than that, we've not had any big needs or demands.

It's been a stable product. In six years, we've never had downtime as a result of it. It's been very stable that entire time.

I believe it will scale nicely. We've not had reason to push that limit yet. We just haven't had a need to do that. I believe they've got a very broad portfolio so that we could scale it fairly dramatically beyond where we're at right now.

The approach that Pure takes is what they call it their Evergreen policy, where they will upgrade the brains of the storage array every three years at no additional charge. Many of the competing systems would require big forklift upgrades and fairly significant reinvestment to do the same thing. We are on our third Evergreen lifecycle upgrade so far, and it's been exactly as they advertised. 

When we look at return on investment over time, we've not had to replace or upgrade it during the timeframe that we've had it. As long as it's supported under maintenance, that continues to be an Evergreen process.

It was less expensive than some of the alternatives. It's not as though it was a premium price to get that kind of quality. It's a very competitive product from a price perspective, but I would say better than many in terms of performance and service.

The product is an easy ten out of ten. We've been very happy with it. We've found them to be a great value. Service and support is phenomenal. It's really hard to find reasonable things for them to actually improve it on.

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.

It upgrades in place which means we'll be using it well into the future.

I recognize it's a difficult challenge, but I would like to see them make the pricing more reasonable. Of course, it is, after all, solid-state. It's not the same as "cheap and deep."

It's a very stable product, all self-contained and very well-supported as well.

It's definitely scalable. It can grow with a company's needs.

It's one of the easiest out there, in terms of installation.

It's a great return on investment, based on the mission. When you're interested in high-performance there isn't much else that competes with it.

We looked at everything. In dealing with this, we got mission-specific. It's like different kinds of planes or sailboats: What's the mission? For this high-performance mission, that's what Pure is about.

I would recommend it to colleagues. When performance is important, that's what Pure is all about.

I rate the solution at ten out of ten. Solid-state storage makes a lot of sense, they're 100 percent solid-state when you need that kind of performance. The pricing is very attractive and it delivers performance for the money.

The sales and executive support have been outstanding compared to the rest of the market. I replaced another couple of vendors that I had in place for storage, who over-promised and under-delivered on their technical expectations, and who certainly over-promised on their ability to do conversions from one array to another. My upgrade paths have been simple on the Pure.

The documentation has gone along with the idea of "it's simple to use." In some cases, we get into very in-depth conversations around the movement of specific data and, what's more, chunk sizes. The documentation lacked any description or information on that.

It wasn't until we got to a point where we had changed out everything front-ending the platform, and got past that conversation and we rose up past helpdesk and fact sheets and documentation, and before we actually got to somebody who knew about it, there was community knowledge within Pure that knew that problem existed. Having that front and center, where we could have searched and looked for that information, would have answered our questions and caused me to rate it as a ten.

I've never had an outage.

It's very scalable. I probably run about 10 million patient visits a year through the system. I've never had a problem. It's back-ending my entire medical record platform. It's a very stable platform.

Prior to Pure, the original implementations that we had for other vendors had been in place for about 15 years. This actually replaces another all-flash array product that had been in place for the three years previous.

From an investment standpoint, the support staff I require for it is greatly reduced, so I don't have the in-depth requirements that I had on other products. The challenges of getting into the product and manage it and moving away from older platforms for systems management disappeared, so that reduced my cost and expense for support. It's a lot simpler to implement and a lot simpler to manage, so I'm able to divert those resources onto other projects, so it's a pretty decent return on investment.

I definitely like the licensing model. It's a lot better than being "piecemealed" as a customer. I've been extremely happy. Cost-wise, it's been very effective. We're a nonprofit-based organization, so pricing is at the forefront of every conversation we have, and it's been a good marriage between the technical capability of the product, the software that we get, the service and support that we get. From a price standpoint, it's been very effective.

I looked at a half a dozen other products and Pure won over across the board.

I would absolutely recommend this product to a colleague. And I have done that already.

We use the space and optimize the makeup of the storage products.

It simplifies the connection between our infrastructure and storage.

The most valuable feature is how it simplifies the management of the SAN.

The product has made our infrastructure more stable and simplified.

I have not had any issues with scalability.

In the past, we had Lenovo. With the Pure Storage, it improved and simplified our connections.

The initial setup was very simple. We put it on the rack, switched it on, and it worked.

We use a reseller for the integration. We had a good experience with them.

We have seen a $15,000 ROI.

The total cost of ownership is not that much lower for flash than SSD.

I would prefer that they lower their pricing.

We only considered Pure Storage. 

My company stays focused with one solution (product) for approximately three years. Then, every three years, we make discussion whether to keep the solution or not.

I would recommend Pure Storage, as it is well-established. It also simplifies and optimizes the right space.

The predictive performance analytics are good.

The primary use case is for the data and storage that we utilize in our managed services. 

We also use it in the company. We localized it.

Deduplication works faster for our customers using this product.

It simplifies building out the storage.

The most valuable feature is its data reduction. 

It is very easy to use.

It needs to improve its price.

The product is stable. It works really well.

I have not used the technical support.

In most cases, we do the implementation because we are the integrator.

We are finding the TCO of flash to be lower than SSD implementations.

The price is too high.

Because the price is a bit higher than other products, the data reduction equalizes the price with amount of the data reduction.

Go for it. The product is great.