Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

I use Pure Storage FlashArray to provide LUNs or volumes for end users who want to work on a database for zoning, enabling them to operate effectively with end-user arrays.

The device gives us a lot of protection in maintaining our data in the storage. It gives high throughput across many locations.

We have faster data processing with low file consumption. This includes multi-terabyte databases in memory with read-write speed four times faster than any HDD. 

Pure Storage FlashArray offers numerous valuable features, such as low latency and high throughput. It has significant data protection in the form of snapshots. It allows data portability around the cloud and on-premises devices. Performance backup is also a key feature.

The support that we received from the vendor during upgrades has been very good. They instructed us very well through the remote connection.

I have worked with two types of Pure Storage FlashArray. So far, I have not found any issues. There is not a great need for improvement, but better pricing could be beneficial.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for three years.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

There is always downtime when working with production servers. I have to plan downtime of three or four hours when launching new servers or logging into new servers with new LUNs. If a lot of people are logging into a FlashArray server, it will require downtime if we have to modify anything.

It is scalable. I would rate the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

It is being used at a single location. We have 30 people using it.

Their support is too good. As soon as I log a case with them, they are always available. They are very fast. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with different storage boxes such as Quantum, NetApp, and HPE, but they are different. They are block storage. Pure Storage provides a unique compatibility when working with LUNs and volumes, offering a totally different SAN product. It is also easier than the others.

The initial setup was straightforward and took about 40 minutes.

The solution has saved us time and resources. It has saved about 20% of my time.

I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It could be improved.

I would recommend Pure Storage FlashArray to anyone because it offers great resilience, high throughput, and excellent storage provision to users on SAN boxes. It simplifies the process of zoning or taking backups.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We use Pure Storage FlashArray as the primary storage of our organization. 

Pure Storage FlashArray is very important for us because this is our primary storage. Most of our data resides in this storage. We rely heavily on it and our backup solution.

We can integrate Pure Storage FlashArray with our Veeam backup software. In addition to our backup, we also take storage-level snapshots. When we take storage-level snapshots for any volume, we can easily restore any virtual machine by using the Veeam portal from the Pure Storage snapshot. This capability is significant for me. As a storage admin, I find it very easy to restore any data. It also reduces the need for extra storage. The data compression feature minimizes the cost of buying extra storage space, benefiting the organization financially.

The compression rate is one of the most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray. Additionally, it is all-flash storage with excellent IOPS, and hardware failures are very less. 

We can easily replicate our data from the DC site to the DR site. 

Everything has been good, but we faced one issue last year while migrating volumes from one Pure Storage to another. The snapshots were not visible in the Veeam backup portal. Our disaster recovery plan was mostly based on the integration between Veeam and Pure Storage, and we faced a lot of problems. Pure Storage promised that a future upgrade would solve this problem by introducing a plugin.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for about one and a half years.

The solution is very stable, and I would rate its stability a nine out of ten. It has reduced downtime by 90% to 95%.

We are a small organization. We have 120 GB of storage and 3,000 to 4,000 people. We have multiple departments using this solution. We have one production site and one disaster recovery site. We have two locations.

They are almost perfect. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used IBM Storage before. The main difference is that IBM supports various storage types such as SAS disk and Flash disk, whereas Pure Storage is all-flash storage. That is the main difference between them. Pure Storage has a higher data compression rate than IBM Storage. 

I prefer Pure Storage over IBM Storage when it comes to performance and power. I also prefer Pure Storage in terms of cost because they are giving the subscription feature to upgrade free of cost. There is also a better compression rate, so we have to buy less storage space than IBM Storage.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was not very complex. It takes a few days.

It requires upgrades from time to time. It also requires monitoring. That is all. There is not much maintenance.

The failure rate is very low. It is very stable. It saves resources and time. We do not have any performance issues. The performance is good. In addition to the time and resources, it also saves us costs. Its high data compression rate results in buying less storage space, thus saving costs.

It is cost-effective because after buying a subscription, they provide a service to upgrade hardware for free. They are providing so many features. When you consider the features provided, it is cost-effective.

I would surely recommend Pure Storage FlashArray for its ease of use and less complexity compared to other storage solutions. The snapshot and replication technologies are much easier to understand and implement compared to other storage solutions.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for storing data for applications. 

The user interface is very good. It is easy to navigate. 

The deployment is very easy.

It is scalable.

The solution is very reliable.

Technical support is helpful. 

The pricing could be better. It is a bit expensive. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years. 

It's a stable, reliable product. It isn't buggy or glitchy. It doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. 

It is scalable and easy to extend. I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. It's very easy. 

We have about four engineers using the solution. 

We increase the storage capacity, however, it depends on the future application usage. 

Technical support is very good. They are helpful and responsive. 

Positive

I've also worked with Dell, which is a bit harder to set up. 

The setup was very straightforward. It's very easy. We find it even easier to set up than Dell. The deployment takes about a few hours or so. You mount it on the rack and power it up and do some configurations to set it up for storage. 

We were able to handle the setup ourselves with the help of a local partner. 

I haven't looked into ROI. It isn't part of my scope. 

It's a costly solution. It is not cheap. 

There is no subscription fee. There is just one initial fee.

We are using an older version of the solution, not necessarily the latest. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I would recommend the solution for its capabilities, however, the price is too high.

In our environment, we use Pure Storage FlashArray for VMware storage. We have a few hosts that are used for creating virtual machines (VMs) and provide storage to them. We also use it for providing storage to databases.

Using Pure Storage FlashArray has reduced downtime significantly. With its replication feature, the downtime is almost negligible.

Pure Storage FlashArray is much better than the traditional storage we had. It is good for reducing downtime.

We also have some traditional storage tools that are being used in our environment. We have some servers that are still using traditional storage. I find Pure Storage FlashArray to be much better than traditional storage because it has a GUI interface. It makes the process of allocating the storage much easier, and most activities are automated. It is like clicking a button for every task.

I like its simplicity. It is very user-friendly.

Currently, Pure Storage FlashArray is mostly being used for high-performance environments that have low latency requirements and high workloads. For environments that do not have such high requirements, it could be costly. It would be beneficial to have a separate pricing point for environments with lower performance requirements or less workload.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for approximately 1.5 years.

I have not observed any crashes or issues with Pure Storage FlashArray. It has been running smoothly without any stability problems.

In terms of scalability, we have enough storage allocated through Pure Storage FlashArray, and I believe it would not present any difficulties if more scaling is required.

The quality of support is good. The response time is good. They do not take much time to respond. They ensure someone is always available to address any issues. There is no leniency in their work. I find them good in terms of response.

Positive

I have used some traditional storage tools, such as VPLEX XIO. The difficulty there was that provisioning and reclaiming storage was very tedious and required a lot of human effort. Using Pure Storage FlashArray has made this process much simpler and efficient. I am happy to use it.

When I started using Pure Storage FlashArray, it was already being used within the environment. It was easy to learn and use. It only takes a short time to understand how to use it efficiently.

It does not require much maintenance. They do make frequent updates and the upgrades smooth. We can do the upgrades without any downtime. There is no impact on the environment when the upgrades are made. So far, it has been good.

I have not worked with other Flash solutions. I find Pure Storage FlashArray to be a reliable product. It has features for backup and restore and it integrates well with cloud environments. For high-performance environments, it is cost-efficient and user-friendly.

I have not spent much time using the dashboard that we get with Pure Storage FlashArray, but I know that if we have any performance issues, we can monitor them through the dashboard.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten. I have been using it, and it has been performing well enough. It has helped me with my work. It has made my work much easier, but there is always scope for improvement.

The core use for us is to test development.

Simplicity and reliability are the most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray.

It would be good to have metrics of the box's performance so we can see what it delivers, but currently, I can't see what it's actually doing—things like CPU and how it's coping.

For the next release, I would like to improve on certain functionality. They have a thing called SafeMode. So, I'd like some kind of SafeMode Manager because the SafeMode is a good feature, but it's very basic in its functionality.

I have been using this solution for three years. We have the I3 and I2 versions.

So far, it's been faultless. It is a stable solution. 

For us, it is a scalable solution. Traditionally, with Pure Storage FlashArray, there has been a problem with scale at the high end, but that's not us anyway. So, it's not something that concerns us.

It's probably around 150 users in my organization. 

I have spoken a lot to technical presales, and it's been fantastic.

The reason my company decided to use Pure Storage FlashArray rather than something else was the simplicity and proper simplicity of the solution. 

The initial setup is easy. 

It's not cheap. It's priced higher than the market.

I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten because the team is great, and it simply just works.

We are using Pure Storage FlashArray for all of our SAN storage for our VMware environment

The solution has benefited our company because of the ease of use and the performance and reliability.

The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is its high stability level.

The GUI could improve, it could be more intuitive. There is hidden functionality.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for approximately eight months.

The solution has been highly stable and we have not had an issue.

I rate the stability of Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We have one person that using the solution to manage it.

We do not plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

I have not used support often but my experience was good.

I rate the support of Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

Positive

I was not there when the initial setup was done, but we recently we swapped the controller and it went smoothly.

Pure Storage FlashArray is a good investment.

The price of Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

My advice to others is for them to plan and try the solution out.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for virtual machine storage. Any virtual machine that we run is stored in Pure Storage. Everything from databases to applications runs off it.

The product provides ease of management. It has a lower cost of ownership. The tool has reduced our power consumption.

We use the metro cluster. It is very intuitive and easy to set up. The data reduction technology is pretty good. We see quite a good reduction in our data. It’s probably in line with other vendors. The performance is excellent. As a storage platform, the solution has been good and very reliable. It's quite difficult to find anything negative to say about it.

There should be improvements in internal data management. If we suddenly dump large amounts of data onto the storage system, it takes a while to process it. The vendor has said that it would be fixed in future releases.

I have been using the solution for 20 months. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The scalability is excellent. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The support is okay.

Positive

The deployment process was very straightforward. It was up and running in an hour. We need two engineers to maintain the product.

The price is reasonable. We don’t pay to license any of the features. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

I also use Dell EMC and XtremIO.

We do routine upgrades. It’s not that often. It happens every six months. I will recommend the tool to others. Pure Storage has simplified our operations and released our engineers to do other functions. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

This solution has been part of a POC. We've been evaluating the solution. 

We went through many renditions of testing with a full load. Even if we pulled a controller out, there was just a blip of response, and it was still extremely acceptable within the limit of what we would consider acceptable - and we're talking about one millisecond here.

This code was mature. We found the hardware to be extremely robust. 

It worked flawlessly.

The deployment was fast. 

The plugin for the ESX, the VMware, was great. That integration is just perfect. They're enhancing it all the time, from what we can tell, so it works flawlessly.

Support is excellent. 

It was a very good proof-of-concept experience.

In the configuration, which we brought in or tested it in, it has a very limited config as far as the array goes. That said, it still did more than our anticipation. 

It's going to be a hard one to manage. They have most of what we were looking at, including some things that we're looking at down the road. The growth on this particular array is almost unlimited for most shops. I would say they still need more enhanced speed, however, that's always a thing with storage.

I've used the solution for six months. 

The stability and reliability are excellent. I would rate it nine out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability was great. I'd rate it nine out of ten overall. 

We have 20,000 people who were virtual machine users that were just on the test load. 

There is potential to increase usage in the future. That said, it's not up to me right now. We're working with the vendor. 

They have very good technical support. The support model was great. They usually had things resolved in under four hours. Service is very fast.

Positive

The deployment is easy. It was implemented in 15 minutes, including SNAP policies. The process was extremely fast.

It required two people to set up the solution. 

We had the whole thing up and running in 20 minutes and probably was done in an hour for everything, including end-to-end connectivity and having ES6 running on it. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is okay. It's somewhere in the middle. I'd rate it five out of ten overall. 

We are using an all-flash X-series deployment. 

I'd advise people to test it and give it a try. They need to pay attention to their data reduction rate while doing so. 

I'd rate it nine out of ten overall.