Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

Pure Storage has been the go-to storage array for me. It's a lot smaller, easier to set up, faster to upgrade, and more reliable. 

The performance is very stable. This is something which I don't get out of a solution such as, for example, 3PAR. 

The code upgrades are very smooth. They're actually all tracking their vulnerabilities. As a customer, Pure Storage gives sufficient time to the customer to showcase the new features and to say this is how to go about going over to the upgrade, and so on. We are quite prepared. We can schedule ahead and be ready for these things. That's something which I like - the selective approach - and everything is on the cloud which helps Pure reach out to their customers and gives these new features. 

Its ability to use multiple services such as the file services, the block services, backup, fast backups, lightning backup, and so on, is great. These features are something that StoreServ or HP doesn't have. They have multiple products for that. Pure tries to bundle them together. That's something which I really like. It reduces the footprint and helps me sell this a lot more to the customer.

Pure Storage support could be a little better. 

The pricing can be a bit high.

In general, I'm quite satisfied with what product they have on offer, and what new features are being released.

I've used the solution for a while. 

The stability is good. The performance on offer is excellent. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Technical support needs improvement.

With respect to them being able to respond, they're more marketing people, less technical. Some of these technical SMEs who I've worked with on Pure Storage, they're really good. However, overall, some accounts still have that thing in their mind that the support isn't as great as some of the bigger companies like Dell or HPE.

That said, that's not the experience for me.

I've also used 3PAR. Performance on Pure Storage is a lot faster than 3PAR.

The initial setup is easy. It's also quick to upgrade. A company shouldn't have issues with the process.

They're okay with the pricing. They're expensive compared to some of the hyperscalers today. When it comes to a private cloud, enterprise-class, where we're looking at highly encrypted, high-performance, highly reliable systems. I might not go with Pure. If I can go with the data center class, I can go with Pure Storage. For enterprise-class, I would still lean back to Hitachi or Dell.

We are partners.

Most of my accounts have multiple storage arrays, and Pure Storage always happened to be one of them.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with it overall.

We are using Pure Storage FlashArray for data backups.

The management is simple in Pure Storage FlashArray.

We need to add more storage in Pure Storage FlashArray with the cluster mode activated for us to have better performance.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for approximately one year.

The solution is stable with low vulnerabilities.

The support is very good they quickly react to problems.

We previously used a Hitachi hybrid storage solution with both traditional storage and flash storage.

The initial setup is very simple.

We have two administrators that support this solution.

The price of the solution is not expensive.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a ten out of ten.

We use Pure Storage FlashArray for machine learning, storage, backups, and computing.

After installing Pure, the processes that would take 40 minutes to two hours to complete are now done in five minutes.

It is easy to install.

The stability and scalability are awesome.

The technical support is awesome as well.

Processes that used to take 40 minutes to two hours can be completed in five minutes.

Also, we can use more capacity and pay less.

I think the areas that they have been working on for quite some time are the CIFS and SMB Shares, that is, being able to mount them directly. I think they're on the right track.

One wish I have is that they will have a solution to help archive data to the cloud, that is, a Cloud Tiering Appliance.

I've been working with it since 2016.

The stability of the solution is awesome too.

The scalability of the solution is awesome. You have the opportunity to grow as needed.

The entire company uses this solution, so that would be close to 2100 people.

It is very extensively used, and we are continuing to expand.

Technical support has been awesome. Sometimes, they've let us know about problems before we've even known that they were there.

We previously used an EMC Array.

We switched because the response time went from a few hours to minutes.

The other piece was the amount of space that we were able to use because of the duplication and compression built in the unit. We can use more capacity and pay less.

The initial setup was very straightforward. The deployment took a couple of hours.

We did a PoC with the product and checked to make sure that it worked in our environment.

We have a group of about 6 to 10 people managing the system.

When we bought the unit, we bought per capacity. So, the licensing is per capacity, and the only thing that we have to buy every year or every three years is maintenance. Included in that maintenance is the upgrade of the controllers every three years at no cost to us.

We evaluated NetApp, Kaminario, EMC XtremIO, Tintri, and Nutanix.

We used scalability, support, the evergreen model, the cost per terabyte or per gigabyte, and the footprint as the factors for comparison. We also looked at how they are able to provide support globally, not only here in the US but also overseas.

I would recommend that you do a PoC to ensure that it works according to the needs of the company, and that will help prevent a lot of headaches.

I think it's a very complete solution at this point, and I would rate it at ten on a scale from one to ten.

I use the solution for the storage of our database and to run some algorithms to analyze data we retrieve from the internet.

I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand.

Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is highly stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have five customers using this solution.

The technical support is very good.

The installation is the simplest I have ever done from any solution.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves with the supervision of the integrator.

We have a team that does the maintenance and operations of the solution.

There is an annual or perpetual license required for this solution.

I am very satisfied with this solution and I would recommend it to others.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We use the hybrid cloud deployment model of this solution and use both AWS and Microsoft Azure as our cloud providers. Our primary use case for this solution is for mixed workloads. 

We are running VMware on Pure. Pure gave us the storage because we're a partner so we're running on it.

The seamless integration into the public cloud has improved my organization. It also benefits my IT organization in many ways. We sell it, we use it, and it makes us faster.

The joint solution, VMware on Pure, has helped our organization. It's tested a lot of stuff and been put in production. It's also used for customers.

Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integrations developed by Pure, any APIs that are available to be using.

It offers seamless integrations and has made it easy for us to do. It's a simple product.

The performance and the Evergreen maintenance are the most valuable features of this solution.

In the next release I would like to see integration into other third-party player providers like Google.

The stability is excellent. 

The scalability is excellent and is very easy. 

Their support is very good, first-class. 

We switched to this solution because of the timing. We are using this solution in conjunction with a solution from EMC. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It only took us a couple of days to set it up. It was so simple.

We are an integrator and reseller so we did the implementation ourselves on one team.

We also evaluated NetApp. It was between NetApp and Pure. The reason we went with Pure Storage wasn't a technical decision, rather, it was just purely cost and the Evergreen maintenance that Pure provides. It just makes it easier when we have a new drive and a new chassis every three years.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. It's simple. It's got great support and it's fast. It does what it's supposed to do. My advice to someone considering this solution would be to test it and build a proof of concept.

Our primary use for this solution is storage. We have a private cloud deployment.

Using this solution has improved our consolidation ratio and it saves us a lot of space. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is the support.

This solution is easy to use.

The price of this solution could be improved.

So far, the stability of this solution has been really good.

The scalability of this solution is really good.

Technical support for this solution is excellent.

Prior to this solution, we were using the IBM Storage Network. The support was not very good, and the feature set was very limited.

We needed something that was simpler to manage and maintain.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

We used an integrator for our deployment, and our experience with them was good.

In terms of space savings, we were able to save a lot of money.

We evaluated a second IBM-based storage solution, and after that, Pure was the second one that we looked at. We heard so many good things about it that we leaned towards that way.

Using VMware has improved our IT organization by providing a stable virtualization platform.

We are running VMware on Pure, which was driven by our interest in consolidation. It has helped us by saving space over using less dense storage.

We have the Pure plug-in for the VMware environment. It has helped us with information monitoring.

For anybody comparing this solution to similar products, my advice is to look into the numbers. This product is definitely worth the price, and it is easy to use.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use it as reliable storage.

The virtual machines hosted on this storage are much faster. It boots so quickly that it is almost inconvenient.

The solution has probably reduced my power use substantially.

Reliability and performance are its most valuable feature.

Its ability to simplify storage is great.

I look at the performance metrics periodically, which are spectacular.

The stability is tremendous.

The scalability is great.

The technical support is great.

We were previously using a NAS, and it was not performing.

The initial setup was straightforward. I had done the preparation first. I had a good relationship with the presales engineer. It went as expected.

We did use an integrator for the deployment, and our experience with them was good.

We have not seen a reduction in our TCO nor have we seen ROI.

We have an Evergreen Storage subscription, which I think is a great feature.

It is an excellent choice, if you can afford it.

We evaluated Tegile, Dell EMC, and Pure Storage. We chose Pure Storage for performance and cost reasons.

We have integrated the solution with VMware and vCenter. It went well.

The solution’s inline deduplication and compression works fine.

I don't have the need for the predictive performance analytics.

The company seems to be engineering oriented, and I appreciate that.

The primary use case is big data. 

SAP is very important for our business. We are running our management system on SAP, so it's very critical. We are running SAP S/4HANA and other ERP modules. We run our config on-premise.

The most valuable feature is test performance. It helps us store large amounts of data along with providing us faster retrieval of data.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is very good.

The technical support is okay, but could be improved.

We switched because the performance was bad with our previous solution, and it was expensive.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We deployed it in-house.

We have seen latency improvements.

We also evaluated EMC and HPE.

We really needed high performance with large amounts of data. We weren't happy with other vendors, and the speed and the volume of data that they could store, handle, and compress.

It has been quite satisfactory in performance and scalability. Since we adopted this only a year ago, we will see what happens in the long term, if they will keep up with their quality.