We use it as our primary application driver for all of storage reasons in our data center for both our corporate and production environments.
We just did all-flash, and all-flash is better than anything disk related.
We use it as our primary application driver for all of storage reasons in our data center for both our corporate and production environments.
We just did all-flash, and all-flash is better than anything disk related.
This was our first all-flash storage enclosure, so we saw huge boost in performance for all of our servers. It has definitely helped us in terms of performance, which is what we needed it for.
We don't have to build any type of storage device, which takes a long time for an IT guy to do. For storage, this makes it much easier when it is set up, because it can be done almost the same day that it is purchased.
The deduplication and compression are its most valuable feature. They have done a really good job, as they were able to shrink down 15 gigs into five gigs.
It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use.
I would like the ability to swap out the network adapters into it. So, without taking out the whole controller, I would like to be able to swap adapters. This would make things easier.
It has been stable. It has been running pretty much flawlessly, except for one power supply which died, and that was it. That power supply was then replaced by Pure Storage. The replacement that Pure Storage sent us did have a bit of an issue when it was placed, but after a tech went in there and fixed it, that was it.
I try to go in there and at least keep an eye on it every once in a while, but it mostly runs on its own. There is no real need to do anything.
We haven't really scaled up.
The technical support did a good on the one issue that we contact them for (the power supply).
We didn't have all-flash. We needed a lot of performance for all of our production environment, and for everything else that was connecting to us. That is what basically drove us to Pure Storage.
The setup was very good. For my environment, which is a cluster environment, they were able to pick that up and do that (and iSCSI) very well.
I had no issues with upgrading our firmware controllers.
You are buying a premium product, and it is worth it.
We were looking at Dell EMC. We were looking at a couple of other vendors, including NetApp. We decided on Pure Storage because of the deduplication and compression that they were advertising.
If you are researching Pure Storage, make sure you are getting the right amount of space set up for what you are doing because the compression will affect how much you are getting overall. You might think you are only getting ten terabytes or fifteen terabytes, but it will be a lot less.
We use it for Hyper-V on my end and OpenStack on the production end. The integration for Hyper-V was very easy. There was pretty much no effort to do it.
The UI is pretty good. I don't use it as often as I probably should, but it usually just runs on its own.
Anytime that you need fast storage.
The back-end data reporting for Pure Storage is phenomenal. The data that you can see on the performance of your customers' array, so you can be proactive about upgrades or enhancements, and is a phenomenal tool to have access to as a partner. I haven't seen this type of stuff out of anything of the other storage systems.
Pure Storage has a lot of statistics which help out with capacity planning.
As a partner administrating the solution, the back-end reporting has positively affected the time involved in managing and administrating.
Performance is its most valuable feature. There is nobody else who is coming close, not that I have seen.
They are on the money with the predictive performance analytics. They claim high performance, and they do have it.
There are things that they are doing with the interface all the time to make it better. It is not the easiest to work with, but it is getting close. As far as interfaces, I always liked Nimble's interface the best. Though, Nimble's interface has been stuck in the mud for the last three to four years since HPE took them over. There hasn't been a whole lot of changes to Nimble. Whereas, Pure Storage has been continuing to improve, which is pretty good. It is not top of the market, but it is getting there.
The UI reporting is adequate.
The setup needs to be improved the most. They can do a little more with the user interface, but the setup is what I would like to see made a bit easier.
I can't think of a time I've had a problem with a Pure Storage array. You might get drive fail once in a while, but it has never been a problem. Usually, that will get reported in the partner dashboard and we will get an alert. Pure Storage will also get an alert.
Nimble used to be the best if you had a part fail. It would be on your doorstep the next morning. It just showed up, every time. No questions. They have lost some of that with HPE.
Pure Storage is still pretty good. I haven't heard any customers tell me that they just had a part just show up without even knowing anything was down, like I used to hear about with Nimble. However, usually they will get some type of an alert from Pure Storage, such as, "Looks like you lost a drive. Do you want us to send someone out or a power supply?" Then, get it out.
They are at least 30 percent faster than their closest competitor. It depends always on the differences on how you scale. I had customers get NetApp, who couldn't get anything out of it. They finally added another storage shelf and started getting some decent numbers. Well, instead of adding a couple more storage shelves, I could do that with one Pure Storage array. What if I don't need that much storage and don't want to have five shelves? You don't need that with Pure Storage, because one shelf will strain.
I don't have any massive Pure Storage installs. Probably the biggest ones that I have been apart of are five or six arrays.
I have at least three customers who have had other stores solutions and installed Pure Storage. There is no comparison. Their old storage solutions have now been relegated to archive, or they have ripped them out.
The initial setup can be challenging. If everything works the way it a supposed to, which it often does, then it is fine. However, when your encounter problems and you have to get into those local admin accounts, that can be a pain. You have to call tech, they need to look up what the password is, then send it to you, which can be a pain.
I would like to see a bit different setup. It would be nice if they have something where you can plug into the thing and see an HTTPS address, like with a bench setup. A couple of other vendors has upped their own Layer 2 protocol for discovery. As long as you are on the same network segment, it pops right up and you can do the base config, then you are ready to log into it in about five minutes. Pure Storage's process is not bad, but it could still be better.
I have never had a problem with a firmware or controller update.
With the pricing, they have, it is pretty competitive to spinning disk.
I have had a couple of customers who have complained about the cost. It can be a little more expensive than some of the other platforms. After it has been installed, I have never had a customer say, "I wish we wouldn't have spent all that extra money." They have always been happy with the product after it has been installed. They might be on the fence about it because of the price, but everybody who I have ever seen install it, they are always happy with it.
The competing vendors are NetApp, Nimble, and IBM. I don't run into a lot of Dell EMC. Customers pick Pure Storage for performance.
There is no comparison performance-wise. I also install Nimble for storage, and Nimble has flash and all-flash, as well. However, if you are looking at the performance numbers, these Pure Storage is just killing it.
I have integrated the solution with vCenter. There is nothing remarkable about it. It works. I have no complaints.
I think all vendors have a pretty decent platform for inline deduplication and compression. There are always little differences here and there, but I haven't seen anything remarkable with Pure Storage.
It is storage for our database system.
The access in our system is more reliable and provides our users better speed.
For flash storage, the speed access is its most valuable feature.
The solution’s inline deduplication and compression is very good.
The predictive performance analytics is a very good feature, as our system is performing better than before.
There are a lot of things to improve.
They make a reliable storage. We use it as a very critical system, and we don't want any corruption on our system.
Since our design is a high availability design, it can work 24/7.
The product is scalable.
The technical support is very fast.
Previously, we used Oracle, Hitachi, and SAN storage. We switched because we needed storage that could be accessed and support our system very quickly.
The initial setup was straightforward in configuring the database and storage.
We used a Pure Storage partner for the deployment. They were very good, supportive, and responsive.
We evaluated Oracle and Hitachi, but Pure Storage had the better pricing.
The features that we wanted have already been added.
We integrated the product with VMware and vCenter. It was a very simple configuration to integrate the VMs and have them read our storage.
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 use it for our financial core storage.
It has been a good product. It has a lot of good features on it.
Because of the encryption, we have different storage and the encryption can go over both. Therefore, we are NCA compliant.
The solution has minimized the time involved in managing and administrating our storage.
It has helped by shrinking our space requirements.
The encryption is its most valuable feature.
The solution’s inline deduplication and compression are pretty good.
Its ability to simplify storage seems good.
The stability is very good. It has been stable.
The scalability is very good.
The technical support is very good.
We need the encryption at REST. That is why they wanted this solution.
We used an integrator, Jack Henry, for the deployment.
The cost has room for improvement.
We evaluated Pure Storage, Nimble, and Dell EMC.
Look into Pure Storage because it seems to be a good solution.
It's the back-end storage for all our virtual environments.
The performance is great.
The predictive performance analytics are good.
It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them.
It has been scalable so far.
We have also used NetApp, but not for all-flash. This is our first all-flash solution.
We were looking for an all-flash solution, and Pure Storage is the best solution right now.
Just give it a try.
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.
It is for storage.
It gives us capacity planning.
It saves us on administrative work.
The most valuable feature is its speed.
It is easy to use and manage.
The time to value of the solution is pretty quick.
The stability is good.
The scalability is good.
The technical support is great.
The technology that we had was outdated. We were using HPE SAN.
The initial setup was straightforward. We just followed the information on the screen: click, click, click.
The start up process is very easy.
We haven't seen ROI yet.
The licensing is $100,000.
Darktrace, which we are also using.
I would recommend buying it.