Pure FlashArray X NVMe Reviews

I use the Pure FlashArray X NVMe solution to enhance our storage infrastructure.

We are incredibly satisfied with the product's performance and flexibility. The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes. The platform's robust features include excellent sustainability tracking, and a comprehensive dashboard offering insights into IOPS, bandwidth, performance, and virtual activities. This not only streamlines our operations but also provides a clear and detailed overview of our storage environment. Additionally, it has multiple controllers, letting us balance the load smoothly.

In terms of improvement, the dual-controller configuration is effective, but I'm eagerly anticipating the roadmap's promise of introducing multiple controllers, which could significantly boost scalability and resilience. 

I would rate the stability of the solution as a ten out of ten.

We have approximately eight users of Pure FlashArray X NVMe at our company and we rely on it every day.

I would rate the technical support as an eight out of ten.

Positive

We switched to Pure FlashArray X NVMe from Hitachi because it is easier to use, offers better visibility, and has automated reports. The user-friendly interface allows us to extend volumes in seconds, a huge improvement compared to our previous experience with Hitachi, which took five to ten minutes for the same task. The simplicity and efficiency of Pure FlashArray made it the better choice for us.

The initial setup is relatively easy. Our deployment was quick, taking just one to two days. The first day was about setting up the hardware and basic configuration, while the second day focused on provisioning. The system's automation features, like running scripts to create volumes, made it a smooth process. Doing it in-house was straightforward, and the solution integrated seamlessly into our setup. It only takes one person to maintain the solution.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe has shown a solid return on investment, especially with the Evergreen feature. With this, you don't need to reinvest in the array every few years. Instead, by opting for the gold subscription every three years, you get a free upgrade to the latest controller release. It is a cost-effective way to stay up-to-date with the technology.

It is on the expensive side. I would give it a nine out of ten in terms of costliness.

Overall, I would rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe as a nine out of ten.

We use Pure FlashArray X NVMe is a premium tier storage offering. It is a dedicated array option that we offer our customers. We are a service provider and deployed it in multiple data centers.

The most valuable features of Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its superior performance compared to other flash tiers, as well as its ease of use, with an intuitive user interface that is simple to deploy and use.

Our use cases require more multi-tenant capabilities and additional VLAN interfaces for separating different customers. We currently use it to provide storage, sometimes shared storage, to different customers, but it is less flexible in comparison to a dedicated solution.

I have been using Pure FlashArray X NVMe for approximately three years.

Since we have deployed Pure FlashArray X NVMe we have not had any major issues with failures or performance on these arrays.

I rate the stability of Pure FlashArray X NVMe a ten out of ten.

The solution scales well and is easy to do. 

We have approximately 10 dedicated customers and another 10 or 15 in the shared use case. Our customers are our users and they may be a company that runs their own software development and this is only their storage on their cloud offerings that they purchase from us.

We plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten.

Overall the initial setup of Pure FlashArray X NVMe is not difficult. It's simple to deploy, install and get up and running. The full process of deployment which includes installation, setup, and configuration, takes approximately one day.

I rate the initial setup of Pure FlashArray X NVMe an eight out of ten.

A small team is typically required for the implementation, as different teams handle different responsibilities, such as networking, virtualization, and facilities. The installation process also requires a couple of people as different roles such as cable racking, networking configuration, and array configuration have to be handled.

We have a dedicated support team for maintenance available 24/7 across all of our data centers. A small group of individuals is in charge of overseeing the platform, and we also have a standard support team in place.

I highly suggest obtaining the implementation certification for Pure FlashArray X NVMe. It is necessary for deployment and can be a bit frustrating as it requires paying for professional services unless you have the certification. With the certification, you are able to deploy on your own. The process is straightforward and uncomplicated, but you don't have access to all the required information to do the initial setup without the certification. Obtaining the certification is a good idea.

There's training material that's available and it's a normal certification test. That cost approximately $150.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten.

They could make it easier to receive information about the solution and the support has been a mix of good and poor experiences.

Pure Storage has a hybrid deployment, and customers can get Pure Storage on AWS or Azure.

Pure Storage created this technology of the NVMe. They have very good features. Pure Storage has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator. It's NTP protection. Also, if your customer doesn't care about the usable space and just wants space to put their data, Pure makes one to four applications, which could take 250 or 300 terabytes of space. The solution is fast and reliable and has good install-based referrals.

Given its price, Pure is not the first option. If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure.

Customers ask if there is Turkish language support, but Pure Storage doesn't have it. Only partners give support in Turkish, or customers need to speak in English. It would be good if Pure Storage could improve this.

I've been in this sector for 28 years, and I've worked with Veeam for two or three years.

I have one client who installed Pure Storage almost eight years ago. During the eight years, there have been no problems such as hardware failure or stopping.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe's scalability a nine out of ten.

Pure has good storage, but they don't have Turkish language support.

The initial setup is very easy. Recently, they made an upgrade, a live system working on a bank, which is a non-interruption upgrade from one service to another one. The upgrade was very useful and easy to do. We didn't need to stop anything. The maintenance and the updates are very easy.

Pure Storage is better than IBM, Dell, and other solutions because it makes a good application and keeps its promise. Pure Storage has stability and works very fast. They keep their promise for what they build. For example, if they promise one to four with an application, they do that. Even if they can't do that, they put in an extra hard drive to keep their promise, and it's a free hard drive. The most important position of Pure depends on whether you are talking about net space or the use space.

Of course, Dell and IBM have good solutions, but that depends on what storage level we are talking about, such as SIP or NAS.

If the customer needs a certain size, say about 500 terabytes of usable space, Pure is not a good solution because it will be expensive. IBM could be a better choice.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten.

Pure might be better than other products could be. But in some projects, IBM is better for the customer. However, I must understand what the customer needs. I am not saying that Pure is the best, but In some projects, I prefer to go with Dell, HP, or IBM. I need to understand the customer needs and budget before comparing them. Pure has better technology right now, but if the customer has a small budget and if we are just talking about the use space or the net space, Pure doesn't work.

We use the solution for storage.

We use it for localization and we use the virtualization environment for the server applications and VDI, and we leverage Horizon for the virtual desktop.

Everything works well, and it is very fast.

The pricing is good.

We're happy with the services. They are user-friendly.

It offers a simple setup process. 

It's stable.

The solution is scalable. 

We haven't come across any major issues. 

They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage.

I've used the solution for about three years. 

The product offers good stability. We can upgrade live to a new version of the software with no issues. It doesn't crash or freeze.

We've tried to add a new disc in the past. It's easy to expand, and we found the process of expansion very simple. 

In our company, we have 2,000 employees working on virtual desktops. If you include our customers, that number is about 4,000.

While my colleague has worked with technical support, I have not, and therefore cannot speak to how they are to deal with. My understanding, based on his experience, is that they are fine. 

The initial setup is very simple and quite fast. The deployment only takes a few days. 

We don't have any issues with the pricing. It's not too expensive. 

I haven't compared the solution to other options. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We're a partner and end-user. We deal with Pure quite often.

We are a solution provider and we sell all sizes of Pure FlashArrays. The FlashArray X NVMe is one of the products that we provide to our customers.

Our clients with their own data centers purchase FlashArray storage because they are replacing old storage systems. They often have HP systems with hard disks and these systems are old and too slow. They are replacing them with faster systems and don't want to have additional costs every three years to renew their storage.

We also have a FlashArray for our own use.

The most valuable feature is the performance.

One of the best features is the support, which is excellent.

The user interface and reporting are good.

It is easy to deploy and administrate this solution.

In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems. They should have direct integration available using Pure APIs. Good candidates would be Rubrik and Veeam.

We have been working with Pure FlashArray storage for more than seven years.

We have not had any problem with stability, even when updating controllers for customer arrays.

We haven't had any issues in terms of scalability.

The support from Pure is excellent.

The deployment is simple. We have a single person for maintenance and they spend one or two hours per month doing it.

This is a good solution and one that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use Pure FlashArray for storing all of our data in a machine for storage purposes.

The input and output speed is crucial for us since we use it solely for storage without any special functions. We are satisfied with the performance as it is significantly faster compared to traditional storage options.

Maybe the price can be reduced since the solution is very expensive.

I have been working with FlashArray for about four to five years.

I would rate the stability of the product at seven out of ten, as sometimes there are minor glitches.

I also rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

We did not contact technical support from Pure Storage.

Neutral

AWS, Dell, and HPE are possible competitors. From my perspective, Pure is better than Dell since it is cheaper.

The initial setup was simple.

We performed the setup in-house with our team.

Overall, I would rate Pure FlashArray a seven out of ten.

The overall performance is great. The single workload performance available from Pure is higher than the SolidFire can provide. 

It's very simple to deploy and manage. Those are probably the two biggest aspects for us.

Everything has been very easy and very intuitive from a support standpoint and from a deployment standpoint. 

In terms of the upgrade procedure, we've gone through that in the last year and it was very smooth. It met expectations.

Technical support has been helpful and responsive. 

I've only been using it for about a year now, so I haven't run into any issues.

The biggest thing for me is not so much the Array itself. It's their Pure1 manage solution, which is a centralized monitoring plane that we can register all of our arrays to and monitor from one location. However, the ability to make that more multi-tenant for customer visibility so that we, as a service provider, can monitor all arrays we give customers visibility down to their dedicated environments would be ideal. Seeing VM performance down to the array level, and things like that would be useful. It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking. 

We've only used the solution for a year at this point. It hasn't been very long. 

The solution is reliable and the performance has been great. We haven't had any issues so far. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't deployed anything too large yet. That said, just based on the design, that two-controller design, we're not going to have any of the scale problems that we had with SolidFire. They do scale it differently as it's a two-controller design. However, you can easily upgrade by upgrading your drive sizes due to the fact that it's all NVMe. The performance is top-notch, as it's all NVMe based.

Technical support has been pretty responsive. In our testing in the lab, my main interaction with their support was testing some of the different features on opening tickets and going through the upgrade procedure, and it was all really smooth. I didn't really have any complaints.

I'm familiar with SolidFire.

The initial setup was very smooth and straightforward. We didn't have any issues with it. 

We are currently a customer. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. I would definitely recommend it. If a company is looking for an All-Flash Tier and they need extreme performance for individual workloads, Pure's the way to go, over something like a SolidFire.

We use this solution mostly for our databases.

The latency is good.

The administration and the stability are very good.

The software layer has to improve. The software is promising but not prominent.

We have upgraded more than 21 things. We have four artists and have had to upgrade the codes. 

There are several upgrades required, but we are slowly catching up to them.

There are not many drill-down options available. EMC is providing many reporting tools that are not available in Pure.

They need better reporting. Some of the tools are missing. EMC is a step ahead in that area.

The usage at the host level has some limited options.

We have been using this solution for one year.

It's a stable solution. It's reliable, we have not been faced with any issues.

Our IT operations team is the only one to use this solution.

We have not yet scaled this solution.

Technical support is really good.

The initial setup was easy. It was straightforward.

The installation was done within three hours. 

The licensing is on a yearly basis. We have a three-year subscription.

I don't know about the pricing as it is not my department, but if we were not satisfied with the pricing we would not have purchased it.

This is a solution that I would recommend.

I would rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe an eight out of ten.