Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

The most valuable features would be its performance, retrieval, recovery, and backup. It meets the customer's expectations. 

I would like to see them lower the costs. They could also include data mining in their next release. 

We have performance monitoring tools and it's hard to integrate them with this solution. 

It's very stable, we haven't had any issues with it. 

Their technical support is great. We don't have to contact them frequently because we don't have many problems. 

We also looked at IBM and Oracle. We did internal evaluations and we decided to go with Pure Storage. We chose Pure Storage because of the processor's performance. 

I would rate this solution a nine. It's extremely stable and has good performance. The only issue is the cost. I would definitely recommend this solution to somebody considering it. 

Our primary use case of this solution is to keep our production and DR data in this storage.

This solution has improved our organization in the way that we used to see latency but now with this solution we don't. It also has good performance. Latencies have come down for our performance in the SQL databases. We can put a lot more in a lot less in terms of space savings. We also save data center space and have good deduplication. 

It has also helped us simplify storage in the way that it's easy to manage. It's the most simple storage solution. 

We like that there are good deduplication savings in terms of the usage in the data center and that the product itself works well. 

Scalability is good. We can do an upgrade in which both of the controllers will be on which has reduced the downtime. The scalability has definitely improved. 

I would like for them to do testing on their upgrades. 

This solution is stable. At times their product of grates could get a little tricky which can be problematic, but they quickly address it.

Scalability is going well. We have been expanding it and we have about five customers now. 

Technical support is very good. We have a dedicated person who helps us which has been a good experience. 

We switched because our old solution wasn't great and we wanted to replace it with a better solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward in the way that the configuration was simple. It's simple to manage. 

The reseller helps with all of the implementation processes. 

We also considered Hitachi and Dell EMC XtremIO. Pure Storage made the cut because of its PoC performance. 

I would rate this solution a nine because there's always room for improvement. They should work on their upgrades, they're not smooth. 

If you're considering this solution, I would tell you to do a PoC and if it meets your requirements, go for it. It's a good product. They're a good company and they have achieved good work. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for storage. We use it to ensure better application performance and to improve the user experience of the application. The cross-storage appliance improves the overall application experience. We have been using this solution as an on-premise solution. It has been useful for our critical applications.

This solution has improved our organization in the way that in the past we had reports that were taking up to two hours and after switching to SSD storage the overall processing power dropped to half an hour. The end users saw an immediate performance gain. 

We like that there isn't a steep learning curve and it is easy to learn how to navigate. It's also quite scalable and easy to implement.

I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS.

We see a lot of reliability coming from Pure Storage, mainly from the fact that over one and a half years, I haven't seen any disc failure especially compared to NetApp.

We use VMware but we have migrated most of the VM load to AWS. We also have Oracle ERP data warehouse and our internal lifecycle management system that is being stored on their storage. It's able to handle the entire load.

Technical support is good. I get pre-preemptive notices from Pure Storage support. They will notify me to check certain parts because there may be a possibility of an issue arising with those parts. I'll know to take a look at the data center and from there I will be able to tell whether or not it's a false alarm or it's an issue that's about to arise. The pre-emptive warning is helpful for us. 

We also considered Hitachi Storage and NetApp. Our decision was ultimately based on two factors: simplicity of the usage and overall performance. We ended up choosing this specific product because we had good support from the application team and we liked the performance coming from the product itself. 

I would rate this solution an eight because it is very reliable in the way that it fulfills its key objective of being performance driven.

If you're considering this or a similar product I would advise you to do a PoC to make sure that this solution actually fits into your environment. For us, we go through a cycle of about three months to do the evaluations across our different storage. One of the greatest challenges that our company had was that our company was not using Pure Storage and they were quite skeptical of the solution. With the results of the PoC, we proved to them that it is something that is going to be very useful for our business.

Our primary use case of this solution is for Rack Database Storage and Virtualized Server Storage.

I used to have to manually sync storage from server to server, for multiple clusters and database storage for disaster recovery but now, that's all automated. I set it up once, and it was done on the very first day we implemented bolts. Storage arrays were set up on the very same day and by that afternoon all of the replication was configured and I haven't had to touch it since.

Has also helped simplify storage for us. It had taken the original person we used a full week to implement. With this solution, we had both arrays set up within around four hours with a thirty minute drive time between the two locations.

We have seen TCO of flash be lower than SSD implementations. We're faster which is part of the equation too. We're paying for speed and if we would have had to buy other solutions, then that would have cost us on the morale side and on the user satisfaction side.

Another way that it has helped my organization is that now we are seeing 3.6 to 1 on Oracle Databases. Our goal was 3, we had to have 3, so we got 3.6 to 1.

The most valuable features for us would be the ease of implementation and box-to-box replication.

I would like to see box-to-box encryption on replication included in the next release. 

We've had zero drive failures and zero problems with it. We've had it in place for about a year and a half and have had zero complaints, other than that box-to-box replication is not encrypted.

Scalability appears to be easy but we haven't had to use it. 

We had to open a ticket with their technical support. We needed to get NIST certified and we had some of our storage on that PRA and we had to be done at the end of the year 2017 so we were in constant contact with support to ensure that we were going to meet all the requirements. In the end, we did hit that date.

We knew that we needed to switch solutions because we were using very old Dell EMC hardware. It was painful, we had weekly drive failures. Every single week one of the key drives failed. It was old, it was out of support, we were losing support, we were paying for extended support, we knew that we had to have this solution. It was all spinning discs, there were a couple SSDs on there but for the most part, it was all spinning discs. We saw some major improvements.

The initial setup was straightforward. The other guy we used took a week to set up and there are still issues. Here we had two arrays set up within four hours with a thirty minute drive time.

We used a reseller called Sirius for the implementation. They were good, we didn't have any complaints. 

We looked at Hitachi which we did put in place for some of our dev environments. We also spoke to IBM. We used to use Texas Memory Systems which was bought out by IBM and we reached out to them to see if there was an equivalent and there wasn't. 

I would rate this solution a ten. 

We use this solution for everything. We have a mixed storage use. 

This solution has helped my organization by cutting down on provisioning time. I used to have to provision a VM and it would take ten minutes, now, it takes thirty seconds. 

It has helped simplify storage. I don't have to go to the management counsel anymore. Everything else is taken care of by support teams in the background which is very good. 

The most valuable feature for us would be its speed. 

The data reduction is working well for the expected usage of VMs and other stuff like that. I do see it's not working very well for already compressed data which is expected. I know this solution is true to the expectation and how it's advertised.

I would like to see active replication. I know that it's available now but I haven't tried it yet. I hope that it works.

Stability is very good. I've only had two big problems with it in the last five years. 

Scalability is good. It's fairly easy for me to add capacity. 

I haven't had to use their technical support much. The few times I had to call them, they were very responsive. I was happy with them. 

We knew we needed to switch solutions because our last storage unit was running out of support so we needed a new one. We chose Pure Storage because we've been using it for a while back and knew that it's a good product. 

The initial setup was very straightforward. 

We used a reseller for the deployment. They were good, I didn't have any issues with them. 

It's expensive but compared to other solutions, you get what you pay for. 

If you're looking into this solution I would tell you that it's a product that's good for almost every scenario. If you have enough money, get Pure Storage. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for the fast storage and database. 

This solution has improved the way our organization functions through its reliability and consistent platform for storage. Has helped up to simplify storage because the management tools make everything a lot easier. 

Performance and scalability are the most valuable features for us. 

Very stable. 

It scales well. 

We knew we needed to switch because the older solution we were using was at its end of life. 

The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage.

We used a reseller for the integration and we had a good experience with them. 

We also looked at Dell EMC and NetApp but Pure Storage performed better. 

I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for the uses that we needed. 

If you're considering this solution, I would tell you to try it. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for the production storage, development, and DR storage. 

We run a lot of Oracle workloads and we need a lot of development environments and this solution allows us to snapshot those environments. It releases those to new teams within minutes at a very small storage cost amount. 

It really helps simplify storage. It's very, very simple to use. The web interface is also very easy to use. The bureau's EOS is just perfect, there's nothing really complicated about it. With the help of the array, it's very easy to navigate. We can see the volumes and our protection groups. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the Legacy storage that we were using.

Ease of use is the most valuable feature for us. It just does what it says. It's very efficient, really quick, and replication is great.

Predictive performance analytics are also good. The compression and the predictive analytics tell us how much storage we're using and how much longer we have before it runs out. The compression algorithms are perfect.

The new features that they are coming out with are very compelling for us, especially now that they have a partnership with AWS it will get some traction in the coming year. We will certainly be going with VMC on AWS. It's very compelling for us now that it's working with VMware.

There's nothing that they could improve on. They've been brilliant all the way through. We've had no downtime, no problems, easy installation; it just works.

There have been no problems whatsoever with stability. We do purity upgrades during the daytime and we don't lose any workloads and we don't have any outages. The support of Pure Storage is just absolutely brilliant. We've had no outages whatsoever with it.

We scaled up when we bought new arrays where we get the snapshot replaced and upgraded for no extra costs. During the workloads and while the upgrade was taking place there were no outages, none whatsoever.

We've had to use tech support on a number of occasions. They did everything remotely and talked us all the way through. They fixed the issue within 30 minutes. Every single time we contact them, they're perfect. I would give their technical support a ten out of ten. 

We were getting rid of Dell EMC because they were awful and they cost a fortune. vSAN was also an option because we use a lot of VMware but we stuck with Pure Storage. It was a solution that we'd put in a few years ago and we didn't have any problems with it so we wanted to continue using it. We have a good working relationship with the account managers in Scotland. They're really good.

The set up was very easy. The hardest part was getting it out of the box and into our tack. 

We used an integrator called ProMax. We did 50/50 with them. We got ProMax to come in and start the process and then we finished off the work. This was the first time that we worked with them and we had no problems with them. I would rate them a ten out of ten. The engineer was helpful the whole way through. He helped me unbox the solution, get it into the racks, build it, cable it up, and get it into production. 

We've seen data reduction figures in the amount of storage that we're using. We've seen cost savings compared to Dell EMC. We've seen the performance of the array. We don't have any real figures, but I'm 100% sure that it's faster than the Legacy storage that we were using.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

If you're considering this solution I would advise you to do a Pure Storage demo and have them put an array in to try. 

We're providing some ESXi solutions to our customers with high performance.

We working now with VM Analytics to provide our customers some strategies about their VMs directly.

Asynchronous and synchronous replication between two data centers. Our platform is housed in two centers, and we're using Pure Storage for their replication.

We are very happy with the data deduplication and compression ratio that we have on the platform.

The console is simple to use. It has good performance. It is easy to install, understand, and manage, with a good ratio of deduplication and compression. It is doing its job.

They could improve the price.

It is very stable.

We did some add-ons months ago without any downtime.

Technical support is good. They are proactive about the upgrades and reactive when we have any issues.

Before working with Pure Storage, we were working with an SP and multi-tier solution. Most of our customers were looking for performance. So, we made the choice to have an all-flash platform with replication. At the time, Pure Storage was the only one to be able to provide some all-flash storage with replication, and replication was mandatory for our customers.

It is quite easy to set up.

We have seen a reduction in TCO.