Pure Storage FlashBlade Reviews

We use this solution to interface the backup of the image and file management.

It performs well and it is also very fast.

There is low latency.

I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabyte.

I have been working with Pure Storage Flash for approximately three years.

This is a stable solution. I have not had any issues with the stability of Pure Storage FlashBlade.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is very scalable.

Currently, we have two customers who are using this solution.

Technical support is okay. There is no improvement needed.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It took approximately 20 minutes to deploy.

We are integrators. We were able to implement this solution ourselves.

It's expensive. The price should be reduced.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

For those who are interested in using this solution, I would recommend it.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashBlade a ten out of ten.

The customer decides what he wants to do, and then we create a solution for them.

It's very easy to use.

At the moment, I can't think of anything that needs to be improved; however, the feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services. I know Pure has a company that's working on the cell system, but it's still not completely there yet.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashBlade for three years.

Stability-wise, it's fine; however, we have one system at a customer's site that has had a lot of problems over the last year — I think maintenance was required over seven times before everything was corrected. Now the system works fine, it's not a problem.

It's as scalable as we need it to be.

Their technical support is not an issue at all — they're great.

I have a little bit of experience with NetApp, but we don't sell the latest NetApp systems. In the past, we worked with NetApp — it's a good filing system.

For me, the initial setup is very straightforward. If there is something you have to change in the beginning, then you can just directly call support; however, as a partner, it's sometimes a little difficult to do. If we're doing some active cluster setups, then we always have to call support to integrate the active cluster — to enable the active cluster. That's something I think we could do by ourselves — that's something that could be changed.

The price is a little high, but I'm not the guy who is selling it to the customer — I only design the solution. Price-wise, somebody else's has to make a decision about it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

I would recommend this solution to other interested companies because it's extremely fast. That's the biggest reason why we recommend it to our customers. 

I last worked with it last year. There was a hospital that was using it for ransomware remediation. It was all about immutable. I was consulting and helping a little bit with that. 

It was all on-prem. They had multiple of them. We did a lot of replication, making sure the replication was right and the snapshots were good and immutable as per design.

The whole idea was to be able to recover the hospital in the event they got hit with ransomware and taken over. The whole idea of Pure worked very well because you could take a snapshot multiple times a day. If somebody comes in and basically grabs your data from you, you can delete that and put back the one before they got here. That's what I loved about the whole opportunity.

The snapshots, replication, and the ability to have immutable blades are the most valuable features. You're putting data snapshots out in those blades, and they cannot be touched. Its performance is great.

It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that.

My storage background is more EMC-based. Way back, I worked with Hitachi. I have worked a little bit with Pure Storage more recently. I can't go and profess to be an expert of Pure.

I found it to be cool and great. I really did. The replication was simple and easy. I would recommend Pure all over the place.

My understanding is that it's pretty straightforward. I like to reference these things as LEGOs and building blocks. Pure seems to go this way. Basically, if you want to add storage, you're dropping in a tray. The tray is coming with the storage and some intelligence. You're building up as you go, and I love that.

I haven't called them.

I've been seeing a lot more, but previously, I was all about EMC. EMC backed my VMware environment, which was extensive and had built-in disaster recovery. Today, if someone asks what I would go for and buy, I'd say that I'm just going to go with Pure.

I wasn't involved in the initial setups, but I have been involved in some reviews of that. It is very straightforward and simple. I was a storage admin for years with EMC, Hitachi, HP, and Sun. Things have evolved so much that it's simple. It's really good.

I don't know what they spent, but from a practical standpoint and for the engagement that I was involved in, the return on investment would be very good. That's because you would be able to go and set up your environment and architect it in such a way that ransomware becomes nothing. It helps in that situation. When somebody attacks you, they want to get your storage or your data. With the capabilities of Pure and some other vendors, you can go and architect in such a way that the impact of a ransomware attack or breach is minimized. That to me is worth its weight in gold.

I didn't have the responsibility to do that in the past. I always just stuck with EMC, which always was easy and simple for me, but things evolved. Like the whole analogy to LEGOs, I move towards that. When you're building storage, you have to worry about performance. Flash drives and all the rest of the stuff are going to give me a certain amount of performance, but as I add more storage, my performance has to go and cover more of an ecosystem. There is more data on there. When you have these LEGO ideas where compute and storage come together as a shelf, you're actually increasing everything at once, which is brilliant. On top of that, they've got all really nice security features, immutable storage, and things like that. 

I love this solution. I would actually buy it. As a matter of fact, I recommended that somebody buy it just the other day. I'm really sorry that I didn't buy more Pure when I had the buying in my responsibilities. I should've bought more. I didn't see it years ago the way I saw it last year.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We have been using it for data center consolidation. It is our primary source for data center applications: production, development, and test. 

It creates a much smaller footprint. Previously, we had a large data center with 30 racks with 12 racks of storage, and we are now down to one. So, a huge electric savings along with freeing our data center ports.

The most valuable feature is its  ease of use. We went from six different storage vendors down to one. The training for the operations staff and others that had to deal with this on a provisioning standpoint was much easier to do. The process was seamless and very easy to learn.

It has absolutely simplified our storage because the dashboards on the consoles show a clear understanding of where you are, and it is also very easy to provision. This been a big help for our teams.

I am very happy with the latency, availability, and reduction rates.

On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge.

We are looking at Pure Storage's capabilities to move off-premise into the cloud.

Stability has been rock solid.

Scalability has not been an issue. Performance has been great. It is just the capacity and dedupe part, which is a little light.

We used technical support during the install process, and they were helpful.

We switched to Pure Storage as a decision to get away from Dell EMC.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was very easy to set the IP addresses up and the rest of the initial parameters up, then go.

Our consultants did the installation with the help of Pure Storage's technical support.

We have mainly seen a reduction in TCO because of operational efficiencies. It used to take us a lot longer to get servers and storage provisioned. Now, the speed of the disk, plus the ease of use, has made great improvements.

We used a reseller for the purchase.

We were in a build a new data center mode, and Pure Storage was one of three option that we considered. Then, it became our final option.

The other options were HPE 3PAR Flash Storage and Dell EMC XtremIO Flash. While all three solutions are comparable in price, we chose Pure Storage because of politics. 

It works quite well for us, and I would recommend it.

From a standpoint of pure performance, it's moving. We've been very happy with it. 

I use Pure Storage FlashBlade for object storage. 

The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective. 

Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration. 

I have been working with the product for a year. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

Pure Storage FlashBlade is very scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Pure Storage FlashBlade offers good proactive support. 

Positive

I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. It takes one hour to complete. 

I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten. 

We have enterprise clients for the product. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use Pure Storage FlashBlade for backups.

It's a very good product.

It is very easy to use, and it is very fast.

The integration with S3 needs some improvement.

There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket.

What FlashBlade can do with S3 buckets needs to be improved. Other things, such as NFS, are simple to implement, but S3 can benefit from improvements.

We have been using Pure Storage FlashBlade for three years.

I am totally satisfied with the stability of Pure Storage FlashBlade. It is very stable.

At this time, we don't have plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is great. The support is very fast.

We are also using FlashArray.

We have limited deployment of Flashblade.

I was not present for the installation, but I believe that it is simple. I don't think that it is complex.

One person is needed to deploy and maintain this solution.

We have evaluated various solutions and recently migrated from Dell EMC with the Cloud and Pure Storage Systems. The migration was done two years ago.

I would highly recommend Pure Storage and FlashBlade in particular.

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

It helps our customers with their storage solutions. 

The ease of deployment and management has helped us simplify our storage. We also do not have to worry about capacity management as much. A lot of these things are native to Pure Storage.

Our availability is at nine nines.

• Deployment
• Cost per terabyte

They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution. 

I have been highly satisfied with the stability.

We are highly satisfied with its capacity management.

We have worked with the engineering team and professional services team. We have had no issues. They are excellent. 

Our customers asked us to change from our previous solution, HPE.

The initial setup is straightforward. Implementing Pure Storage end-to-end from procurement all the way through deployment, we have no issues.

We are the integrator.

Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO. The amount of reduction depends on how poorly they were previously doing at storage management.

Our customers have also seen ROI.

We also evaluate NetApp and Dell EMC. The reason that we chose Pure Storage was because the cost per terabyte was lower and customer demand.

Pure Storage should be the top contender for certain types of workloads.

Our primary use case of this solution is for storage management.

We needed a separate storage device because we have a large amount of data. The cost benefits of this storage have improved my organization. 

Has simplified storage because it is easy to use. It's plug-and-play. We don't need too much support or technical support to be able to start using it. 

There has been a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%. 

The most valuable feature for us would be that it's a good cost-benefit solution for storing large amounts of data compared to other solutions in the market. 

We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution.

It's stable.

Scalability is good. 

I'm not directly involved with the technical support but I haven't heard any complaints or any issues about it. The vendor helped us to install and deploy the solution. 

I would rate this solution a nine. The only reason I wouldn't give it a ten is because the servers are a little big. We have seen smaller products with the same storage capacity. We switched because we were looking for a solution that could meet our data storage and performance needs. We researched the costs for different storage solutions and Pure Storage was the one that fit our needs. Its cost-benefit was the most valuable part for us. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The vendor helped us to install and gear it. We had a good experience with them and didn't have any issues. 

Nowadays we have plenty of data storage solutions in the market. Pure Storage is very fast, very straightforward. The price was nice. I believe that in terms of at least storage needs, it filled its role very well.