Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

Provides awesome performance, and it's been able to shrink all of our data center from two-and-a-half racks to one rack and give better performance with SSD drives versus spinning disk drives. It has saved overall costs from our heat and power within our data center where we're now just powering up a 3U device.

More than five years.

It's very stable. We were actually able to do multiple upgrades, including head upgrades and moving between the platforms, M20 and M50, over the years. We have never once lost a ping and have never had an outage due to an OS upgrade or a complete head upgrade.

Scalability is great. Pure's model is adding more disk space to it and then getting a better controller to make sure you are going to stay with your performance. It's a wonderful model.

We have our dedicated resources that we have reached out to, but because there have really been no issues with anything, we're not on the phone with them constantly. Whenever we have had an issue or question, someone is always very responsive. They even come onsite for major issues, such as an NOS upgrade, just to hand-walk us through what we're doing.

Deployment was easy. I didn't do it. I am not a technical guy, but my team was able to get it deployed and then connected to our ESX environment within two hours.

Like anything, when you are paying more than you were paying for the storage space, you'd like the cost to be less. If they could get into the spinning disk kind of cost, that would be it. But what you are getting for it, you are definitely seeing a good ROI.

We considered other options. I have used the others, EMC and NetApp, etc. We have looked at all of the platforms, and to see what Pure was able to do within a PoC environment meant that we never turned back our PoC environment. We just bought it and kept running with it. It was an amazing product based on what we had seen out there in the market.

I would definitely recommend it to colleagues. I have not only used it where I am currently at, but I have also used it at other locations before. I have recommended it to partners, and colleagues that I have worked with in the past, across the state of California.

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 Pure Storage for most of our databases, as well as for other application binaries.

Our biggest database is the Oracle ERP. Right now, it is around nine terabytes. It has grown from four terabytes in the last five to six years. Initially, we were worried because most of our functions and processes got slower. We thought we might have to add more  infrastructure and upscale it from a CPU perspective. Then, we moved to Pure Storage, and we suddenly saw some of the processes, which were running slowly, sped up automatically.

We have also seen a reduction in the latency.

The most interesting feature is the speed at which it executes I/O. After moving to Pure Storage, I have noticed that our databases are considerably faster.

Our performance has improved by at least four times.

The support for NFS protocols right out-of-the-box need improvement. I'm used to other storage vendors who have NFS support right out-of-the-box, and Pure Storage doesn't seem to have anything. We have shared APPL_TOP on our Oracle ERP, which would require an NFS type of storage. So, we had to resort to building our own NFS VM, then attach Pure Storage to it, and have it go through the server. This didn't really serve our purpose, as it's a lot slower because it's now going through a VM installer NFS server.

While we know Pure Storage supports snapshots, we haven't been able to implement databases or replication using them.

It has been very stable. I have not seen or heard of downtime storage issues after moving over to it.

It looks like it is scaling pretty well.

I have not used the tech support.

We have seen a reduction in total cost of ownership (TCO). 

Use Pure Storage for databases. I have seen a huge increase in speed and performance on our databases.

With Pure Storage FlashArray we have been able to deploy several thousand VDI servers, virtual machines, very quickly and efficiently. We were also are able to virtualize 80% of our workload, and we are planning to get 90 to 94% of our workload virtual. That's a huge reduction in the cost of hardware.

What I like most about this solution is that it is simple to bring in, install, and get it going. You can get it installed in a few days.

What's more, the compression ratio that we're getting is that our database portion is pretty high, so it saves a lot of money.

We have had no issues with the stability so far.

The solution is very scalable because it is fairly smooth and easy to upgrade. 

The technical support has been pretty good. The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing.

Pure was the first solution we used and now we use a couple more. One of them is an EMC product and then we also have a new start-up called Vector, so we currently use three solutions.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward and the integration was very easy to do. There were no hidden features and the GUI was very straightforward. 

Traditionally we have been buying massive storing arrays from EMC and from Hitachi, but most of them were built for very high tier applications. For VDI with your desktop, you really don't need that so it was easier for us to go for an array that used high-speed devices, providing Hadoop capabilities because the nature of your desktops are literally the same. So we needed to look at newer technology, and this really was one of the first ones to be there, and it was very popular. We did a study on the market and found that VR was one of the leaders in this space, so we brought them in.

We ran into some issues with the program at first and we had to work around those issues to fix our problems. So at the end of the day, it wasn't really a smooth ride. It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure. That's why I would give it an eight or a nine out of ten. But definitely not a 10.

Our primary use case of this solution is for Citrix. 

We use the on-premise deployment model. 

Our previous SAN storage environment never performed with the same levels as this does. The performance levels and the storage have improved my organization. 

It has benefited our IT organization because we're a 95% virtualized environment and we're able to allocate resources as needed and manage our whole infrastructure that way.

We are running VMware on Pure. Our main driver for this was to isolate our Citrix environment from the general SAN storage board.

The joint solution has benefited my organization in the way that it isolates it, giving peak performance and does not share it with other environments that have any infrastructures or competing resources.

The speed is the most valuable feature of this solution. 

It has been very reliable. 

We have had no issues with scaling up to whatever demands that we have.

I haven't had a lot of direct interaction with their support but VMware is very good.

We replaced another Legacy Solution. We wanted to maintain its isolated capabilities.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We haven't seen ROI. 

We evaluated EMC and HP.  

I would rate it an eight out of ten. The storage has been very good. I don't know that it's a large enough deployment across the boards to know how it would fit in the rest of the enterprise. 

It provides better performance for our desktops.

It has positively affected our space requirements.

We have reduced the time involved in managing and administrating our storage.

We haven't done as much capacity planning as we should have. I am sure it would help us.

The most valuable feature is its performance.

The solution’s inline deduplication and compression are very good.

The upgrade architecture is very good.

Our data reduction rates, latency, and availability are all good.

The stability is very good. The stability and performance are the best things about the solution.

The scalability is very good.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have undergone an upgrade of firmware.

We have seen a reduction in TCO.

The cost has room for improvement.

Our Evergreen Storage subscription is supposed to be good when we go to upgrade.

We did an evaluation of Dell EMC, Pure Storage, and NetApp.

I would recommend trying it. We like the product, and it works well.

We attach it to a Cisco UCS for VMware.

The product has helped with speed. Previously, on disk, we would see latency issues with our SQL boxes. With Pure Storage, we don't see any latency or IOPS. It has been a very seamless integration.

• Resiliency
• Speed: It's fast. It's like I don't notice anything. 
• It's very easy to use. The GUI is simplistic, which can be nice.

The predictive performance analytics are great. I get everything I need to know: IOPS, latency, etc. The tech support works with me if I have any questions that need to be answered.

The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it.

I would like to have better training. I would like to have an hour class or more online training.

It is very stable. 

The only thing that we have ever had an issue with is connecting to the Cloud Mediator. Because we run in an active cluster situation, it has to connect to the cloud. Recently, we lost connection to the cloud, so it sent us alerts, making us all worried that our active clusters would separate. However, when the time came, it worked really well, and we were fine. Then, tech support fixed it, and it was better.

With scalability, you just add more shelves and buy new controllers. If you have the Evergreen Storage subscription, then you get new controllers every year. 

I can buy more storage, if needed. However, with the dedupe and compression, it will be a while before I need to.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was very easy to setup because everything was brand new. We had brand new Cisco UCS servers with the FIs that plugged right in. It was seamless.

We have experienced an upgrade of firmware controllers. The process is very easy.

Before my space was a whole entire rack. Now, it is 4U or 6U. Space has been nice, because now I can put other things in that rack.

The Evergreen Storage subscription is great, because then I get new controllers every three years.

I would recommend Pure Storage. We have already done the research.

I could plan to do capacity on my Pure1 storage, and the deduplication works very well with it. For VMware, it has been a humongous savings. Once we get our file system onto it, we may see the dedupe work better, but we haven't got that far yet.

We have integrated the solution with VMware, which is great.

Our compression rates are 4:8:1. We are using it for VMware and our Oracle solution. It's a little higher on the Oracle solution. However, it has been great. 

For the IOPS, I don't think we ever really hit anywhere near what we thought we were going to hit. You always think you need more than you need.

I have found the whole deduplication and compression process enlightening.

It does everything they say it will do:

• It's very cost-effective compared to other big players.
• Adding storage to it after we bought it was not a shocking cost surprise.
• It integrates very well with VMware as we're using Site Recovery Manager from VMware.
• It's also tiny, it doesn't consume very much space. We're saving power and space in the data center. 
• It's really easy for us to manage.

I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason. I have other solutions that work, but I would use it if they had a little bit more fault-tolerance or if somebody explained to me that it's better than I think it is.

It's very stable.

Their support system has insight into errors on our SAN fabric that we can't see. They've brought attention to and raised awareness for us about things that we couldn't see, when we were experiencing problems. They helped us figure out how to fix them, helped us coordinate. They did not need to do that. It's just stellar support.

They're taking really good care of us. Their support is on the ball. They're proactive.

We were using HPE 3PAR, which we liked, but this is much more cost-effective.

We own five Pure arrays. The salesperson came in and set it up for us every time. Note that it was the salesperson who was able to set them up for us.

I would definitely recommend this product to a colleague.