Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

I primarily work with small and medium-sized businesses, and Pure Storage FlashArray has consistently been our primary storage array. Initially, we dedicated it to SQL Storage, but after witnessing its exceptional performance, we expanded its use to encompass everything else in our environment. Previously, we used VNX from EMC, which was incredibly slow. The significant improvement from tens or hundreds of milliseconds to microsecond response times motivated us to upgrade and make FlashArray the core of our infrastructure.

I immediately recognized the benefits of Pure Storage FlashArray, including the instant improvement in response time and performance compared to my previous storage solutions. A decade ago, Flash storage wasn't ubiquitous; it was considered a high-end solution, primarily utilized for caching, while spinning disks remained the standard. Therefore, the speed of FlashArray was remarkable. Over time, as FlashArray became more commonplace with increased adoption and competition, its reliability and seamless integration with VMware and other products solidified my decision to continue using it over alternatives like Nimble or other Gartner Magic Quadrant recommendations.

The interface has always been one of my favorite features because it's fantastic from a usability standpoint.

FlashArray significantly reduced our storage footprint, shrinking it from 30 racks down to just six. This dramatically decreased our overall impact, not only in terms of space but also power consumption. We went from hundreds of power-hungry spinning disks to a mere 30 FlashArray disks, resulting in a substantial difference in energy usage.

I have not had any downtime due to storage failure since using Pure Storage FlashArray.

Pure Storage FlashArray reduced our total cost of ownership by decreasing the number of labor hours required.

The most important feature of any storage array is its reliability, measured by its uptime. This is the core selling point of Pure Storage FlashArray. In my five years selling and troubleshooting storage solutions, I experienced firsthand the frustration and consequences of downtime and issues. These problems were notably absent with Pure Storage FlashArrays, which is what initially sold me on the brand.

The interface lacks the same level of control as some other arrays I've used. So, while it's easy to use and simple, it offers different control. I dislike that if I need to fine-tune something, I usually have to engage Pure Support because the ability to manipulate settings isn't in the interface. I prefer to be able to do things myself rather than rely on external help.

When we started using Pure Storage, they were a smaller company focused on expanding their user and customer base. However, as they grew, their customer service declined. A few years ago, I was using a four- or five-year-old Pure Storage FlashArray, and after three years, they informed me that I needed to upgrade my disk to continue receiving support. This forced me to spend an unreasonable amount of money on an upgrade, especially for a small business. Unlike other storage providers like EMC or NetApp, third-party support wasn't an option. I feel that Pure Storage's growth has led them to lose touch with their customers and the excellent support that once set them apart. Their support philosophy has changed, and this negatively impacts the overall experience, particularly for critical data center components.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for ten years.

There was one instance about ten years ago when I had some high latency in certain situations, and Pure Storage patched that quickly. So, I'd say the Pure Storage FlashArray is extremely stable.

Scaling up the Pure Storage FlashArray can be expensive if you don't initially size it correctly. If your first array reaches its capacity, you'll need to purchase a whole new array to upgrade. While it is scalable, planning and sizing it correctly during your initial purchase is crucial to avoid unnecessary costs.

I've used many storage arrays over the years, but I have yet to use or personally manage an all-flash array. I have extensive experience with spinning disk arrays, including EMC, VNX, NetApp, and a few Dell EqualLogic.

The initial deployment is straightforward. I have done five of them so far. Usually, someone from Pure Storage is on-site for each deployment. I even deployed one during COVID-19, which was a bit challenging, but they allowed me to proceed and guided me through it because I had prior experience. Overall, the process is straightforward.

The deployment takes a couple of hours, and one person with experience is enough to complete it.

I need to get updated pricing information because it's been a while since I last checked. When I last looked, the prices were reasonable, and we could get an excellent array for about $60,000. So, overall, their pricing is reasonable. However, I haven't looked at their newest pricing, and I know they just released something impressive, like a six-terabyte NVMe or something like that. I'm curious about the pricing for those ultra-dense, high-density storage options, but I still need to check them out.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray eight out of ten.

If you're considering a Pure Storage FlashArray, it's a solid choice for performance and value. However, be aware that they may pressure you to upgrade after a few years if your model becomes outdated, potentially costing you an additional $50,000 to maintain support. So, while it's a top-tier option from a technology perspective, factor in the possibility of future upgrade costs when making your decision.

Maintenance is not required. From a support perspective, if something breaks, it automatically notifies Pure Storage. They will inform us of the issue and send a replacement part. If we are under maintenance, they will send the part or dispatch someone to fix it. Generally, it's a very hands-off system. They proactively notify us if we're running low on capacity or if there are performance issues, which I've only encountered once due to a bug they quickly patched. Overall, it's a hands-off experience.

Ensure you receive a written guarantee that the discs will remain in service for at least the next three years and won't require replacement at your expense. Also, confirm you have conducted thorough research to avoid unforeseen costs arising in the next three to five years.

I use FlashArray to manage storage and DR sites for my clients.

We saw the benefits of Pure Storage immediately. The biggest benefit was data reduction. We migrated 700 terabytes of storage to Pure Storage and reduced that to 400 terabytes. It managed the bottlenecks since the storage was moved to mNVRAM instead of mechanical devices. Unfortunately, since our staff is based on the storage size, I lost one of my coworkers because of the incredible reduction we achieved.

The main benefit of FlashArray is the speed, and the compression you can get with these boxes is insane. FlashArray's single pane of glass management is nice. It allows you to manage storage easily.

You can even review the devices from your phone. You don't need to be connected to your company's website or VPN to access alerts and reports. While you can't manage the devices using your phone, you can review all the important details about the machine. 

The device is incredibly user-friendly. To create a volume, go to "Volumes," which will give you all the options for what to do with the volume. You can go to "replications" and it will show you everything you can do with replications. It's very straightforward.

FlashArray could improve on the administrative side. For example, when you need to upgrade the boxes, we can't do that ourselves. We need to open a ticket with support and have them do that for us. You don't need to be on the call with them. We tell them we have a slot that we want to upgrade, and they send us an email when it's done. 

I'm hands-on, but I don't have a way to play with the device. In terms of troubleshooting, there isn't much to troubleshoot. I can see the logs, and that's all. I wish they had more APIs to connect to other environments. They should expand their catalog. Right now, they have the top APIs, but Pure Storage lacks APIs for small companies. They have VMware, Oracle, and the top brands. 

I have used FlashArray since 2019.

I only experienced lag once, and that was my error. I accidentally shrunk the bandwidth. After a few P1 calls, we realized it was our error. The reading and writing are pretty fast, and there are lots of logs and reports that help you diagnose the problem. We haven't had much downtime, and there is redundancy. 

Scalability is simple. You can add an array when you need more storage. 

I rate Pure Storage support eight out of 10. Pure Storage technical support resolves issues quickly. We had to open a P1 ticket because we lost a volume. They got on a call with us and had our device running in a couple of hours, but it took us 30 to 45 minutes to get an engineer. 

However, it went smoothly once we got someone on the phone. We also work closely with our account team. They provide use with tips on how to get the most out of our product

Positive

I used IBM v7000, Infinidat, and Dell Data Domain for various clients. FlashArray has advantages in terms of user-friendliness, speed, and compression. The other solutions are highly robust but use a mechanical disk. Moving to FlashArray was a game-changer. 

Infinidat can offer similar performance, but FlashArray's compression is a little better. Pure Storage is also a small machine, so it draws less power. It isn't a huge device you must put in a rack. It doesn't have a mechanical disk producing lots of heat. 

Deploying FlashArray was simple. Pure Storage had its engineers on-site to help us with the various network options. They configured the devices, so we had to connect them to the network switches and the LDAP. After that, we only needed to log in with our credentials and create the volume. 

Installing the devices and setting up volumes took a couple of weeks. It depends on your network speed because copying all that data can take a long time. With a fast network, you can set up a device in 10 to 15 minutes. We had 700 devices, but it was pretty simple once all the old data was in Pure Storage. The only post-deployment maintenance was upgrades. 

We take care of the customer's environment using three teams. One handles the storage and SAN. One is responsible for Windows, and one handles the Unix system. 

No storage device is cheap, but Pure Storage is fairly priced and offers what you pay for. You get all the licenses in the future when you purchase a license. 

They have an Evergreen program, where they upgrade your hardware every three years. It's cheaper than buying a new one. They replace the old hardware for a discount, but you have to pay for a new license for ransomware protection and a license to connect to VMware and manage all your VM farms. 

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of 10. I recommend keeping in touch with the Pure Storage team and taking advantage of the training and certification. They have good academies where you can learn how to administer the devices. 

Virtualization with ESXi, Hyper-V, XenServer, KVM is the primary use case. VDI, containerization, AI, HPC are some other use cases seen in my day-to-day consulting with customers.

Being an all-flash storage, it has helped improve performance of business apps reducing latency and increasing IOPS.

One valuable feature of the Pure Storage FlashArray is its flash-based architecture, which provides a significant advantage. 

Another noteworthy aspect is their platform, Pure1, a cloud-based management and analytics platform that automatically creates an SR (case) on issue detection and proactively provides resolution.

Evergreen subscription model is also remarkable, allowing clients to receive the next hardware generation at no additional cost.

A noticeable area for improvement is the support for object storage. FlashArray does not natively support object storage like S3 or Swift, which pushes customers needing these features towards the more expensive FlashBlade. Integrating object storage into the FlashArray would benefit entry-level and SMB customers by offering a more unified solution.

7+ years

The stability of the product is excellent. I have not encountered any significant issues, such as applying firmware that introduces bugs. The overall stability of the product is commendable.

The solution is highly scalable, particularly when there is a need to expand capacity. An expansion shelf can be purchased and connected when needed.

Opening a case with Pure is a smooth process, and they prove to be reliable, even in severe cases where infrastructure issues arise. Their support is top-notch, and their NPS scores reflect this.

Positive

Over a five-year cycle, compared to other vendors, cost savings of at least 10% can be achieved if configured optimally.

Pure Storage FlashArray is a premium product, but the introduction of the C-series has been a strategic move to make it more accessible to budget-conscious customers.

We mainly use FlashArray to provide flash storage for SQL and Oracle databases in production.

FlashArray has improved the stability of our servers and critical databases stability and server stability. We began seeing benefits two to three weeks after we deployed. The platform is more flexible and has lower latency.

The Direct FlashArray stands out as one of the best features in the market. The Pure1 storage management lets us see the details about utilization and everything else for all 40 storage boxes in one place. This is a crucial feature if you're using FlashArray for critical databases. 

I would like FlashArray to add reports that help us forecast our predicted resource needs based on current usage. 

We have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for three years.

I would rate the stability of FlashArray as nine out of 10.

I rate FlashArray's scalability nine out of 10.

I rate Pure Storage customer service nine out of 10.

Positive

We previously used Dell EMC. Creating storage groups and mapping was more complex. Pure FlashArray is simpler and easier to use, and our storage staff doesn't struggle as much with it.

The initial setup is easy and does not require much expertise. Even individuals with five or six years of experience can handle it.

We have seen a return on investment as the solution has reduced resource requirements, allowing less experienced personnel to manage the storage. You don't need 15 years of experience to work on this. It can be easily handled by someone with five years.

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

The cost of Pure FlashArray is a bit high compared to peers, but its sustainability and features justify the price.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of 10. I recommend FlashArray. It protects your data and has low downtime. 

We use Pure Storage FlashArray as our client storage solution. We create dedicated hosts and allocate appropriate storage space to each host server to accommodate their needs.

Our clients were experiencing difficulties running jobs and encountering storage limitations. By implementing Pure Storage FlashArray, we can remotely access the host server and expand the storage capacity to meet our clients' needs.

The FlashArray's single pane of glass is crucial for providing clients with easy access to IOPS and other essential features. This means the FlashArray must be highly accessible, with increased bandwidth, but no additional requirements.

Compared to Dell Unity, Pure Storage FlashArray offers a more comprehensive port configuration, providing eight front-end and four back-end ports. Dell Unity limits connections to two front-end and two back-end ports. Furthermore, Pure Storage FlashArray includes an Ethernet, USB, and management port, enhancing its connectivity options. In contrast, Dell Unity uses a heterogeneous storage environment, combining flash arrays and SAS arrays, which requires manual configuration and assignment based on specific requirements. Pure Storage FlashArray, on the other hand, exclusively employs Pure FlashArray components, eliminating the need for heterogeneous storage and simplifying management.

Pure Storage FlashArray helps save our clients a maximum of 30 percent in resources.

Pure Storage FlashArray has to be available for our clients 24/7, which has significantly reduced downtime.

I work with Pure Storage FlashArray models 2K and 8K. Compared to Unity, these arrays offer significant advantages, such as NVMe technology and higher IOPS. Additionally, they provide more storage capacity and are easier to access than other models.

I want to improve the overall service level of the solution.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for two years.

Pure Storage FlashArray is stable. The arrays are good for four years, after which we must destroy them and migrate the data to a new one.

I would rate the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of ten.

We use NetApp for file-level access and EMC, VMAX, and PowerMax. We will continue using NetApp for file-level access, which requires us to provide a shared folder or create a new one. We will allocate storage space to this specific folder, not the entire cluster. This minimal storage is necessary for administrative access and small activities or groups using NAS storage. For larger datasets, high IOPS, or big data storage, we use Pure Storage FlashArray.

The deployment process is straightforward. We will access the GUI, partition the volumes, isolate the host group, and segregate the host. As part of my previous work, I was also involved in decommissioning Pure Storage systems. When dealing with Pure Storage, it's essential to verify the status of the volumes. Ensure that all volumes are offline before proceeding with the decommissioning process. Once the volumes are offline, we will delete them, remove the WWPNs, destroy the volumes, and finally delete the host server. We can deploy around 30 servers per month.

While Pure Storage FlashArray may carry a higher price point, our clients observe a return on investment due to the significant time savings enabled by its exceptional IOPS performance. This increased efficiency more than justifies the initial cost.

Pure Storage FlashArray offers higher performance and IOPS than Dell Unity, thanks to its use of 32-gigabyte cables. While it comes with a higher price tag, this investment often translates to significant improvements in performance.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray nine out of ten.

Pure Storage FlashArray offers exceptional accessibility, ensuring our clients experience minimal to no performance issues, even during intensive I/O operations. Our clients have consistently reported high IOPS and successful job execution without encountering any errors or delays. This rapid response time, measured in milliseconds, underscores the FlashArray's ability to provide seamless storage access.

Our clients are enterprise clients.

Maintenance is necessary for ports, DIMs, fans, power units, and arrays. If a power unit fails, a redundant unit will access the data. We will notify the client of any issues and submit a service request for resolution. After the replacement, we will verify the GUI and log into the Pure FlashArray to check the status of the specific disk. If it's online, we'll take a screenshot and close the case after making the changes.

I recommend Pure Storage FlashArray to others due to its exceptional IOPS performance and user-friendly interface.

I had four or five Flash Arrays. I used it primarily for virtualization and video media, depending on the workload. 

It's simple to use. Upgrading is easy, as is the user interface. The connectivity is simple. 

The performance of the product is phenomenal. 

Pure was open to be checked out by any observability platform. It integrates well with Splunk, for example. 

Its single management pane of glass and dashboard are excellent. At first, it was hard to get used to since I was used to other types of dashboards. However, once I figured it out, it was great. It was very easy to work with. 

The benefits were realized right away. Between the flash array and the compression, you can really see how good it is. Our databases run a lot better now.

Pure hasn't helped us decrease our storage footprint. However, I was at a company that demanded storage when I was using it. We had different solutions for different storage needs. We always needed more storage for video, for example. The capacity was great in that sense. 

When I used Pure, I worked in an environment that was 24/7. Everything we ever built was designed to be damn near bulletproof. I wasn't dependent on a single unit at any point. Everything we did had to be doubled, tripled, quadrupled up. Sometimes, multiple sites with multiple doubles based on the requirements. We've never had downtime.

The evergreen architecture is great. You can interchange things and move up. That never happens with other storage solutions. 

Sometimes you don't realize that the capacity on offer is actually because of compression and all those things. It's just not as visible as it is on a NetApp or some other platform. You don't get the full view. You get the view that they give you, which is fine, but you don't get the full view. You don't get the nuts and bolts. Once you dig in and you learn how to read it, then it makes sense. However, when I first started, it didn't make sense to me.

For large storage needs, it is expensive. When we got too big, we didn't go for more Pure, we went with Isilon, since we were working into the petabytes range.

I've used the solution for three to four years.

I've contacted technical support to run upgrades. They are professional, easygoing, and answer me on time. They know their stuff. I've never had issues. I can contact the right people directly; I never had to roam around looking for someone. Sometimes it will take some time for someone to get back to me once I put in a ticket. 

Positive

We used HP Nimble. That was a full all-flash array. The difference between Nimble and Pure was that with Pure, the upgrade process had to be done by tech support, which I didn't mind at all. In the Nimble, it was just a file, and I could upgrade it. Upgrade-wise, Nimble was better. Beyond that, they were pretty on par with each other. 

I have a lot of experience with Pure and find the solution easy to deploy. 

The only real maintenance is upgrading. There isn't a whole lot we need to worry about. It's one of the easier solutions to deploy with the least amount of failures. Things seldom went wrong. 

Pure is not cheap. Of course, cost isn't everything. If you can buy a really cheap piece of hardware, however, when it comes to being able to get data, doing upgrades, navigation, and all kinds of stuff, you spend more time and effort trying to do that than just doing the work and letting Pure handle a lot of this stuff. So, you can pay it upfront or later. One way or another, you're going to pay for it.

Now, everything is coming down in price since there's more need and competition. I don't see a huge difference in the market. Everything is comparable, size-wise, and everything else is comparable in cost. Storage is storage. It's going to cost you no matter what. That said, those features, those extra things that they put out there, those extra parts are really where the expenditure really comes from. 

I'm a customer and end-user. 

If a company has the money and they want to do it, I don't understand why they wouldn't. From an administrator's perspective, not from a business point of view, it's great. However, users need to check the numbers. 

From an administrator perspective, they handle the upgrades, they do all these things - you don't have to do it. That's a whole lot of time you don't have to spend. For the performance, you get better monitoring. You don't have to spend extra time, money, and effort getting an extra monitoring solution. You can get that from them. Observability and monitoring are extremely important when it comes to this. Pure gives you a great way of connecting it to anything and getting information. The API works great. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. The only issue is it is really expensive. 

I'm a Pure Storage partner and I have implemented two use cases for my customers. In one case, my FlashArray works like storage, but my CPU is in my other servers. In my other case, it works only as a backup.

FlashArray helps us reduce our storage footprint. FlashArray says that it can hold 10 terabytes, but I have 13 terabytes on one FlashArray in one case. We have 3:1 compression. When FlashArray says it's at 16 percent, it's a note, but it isn't helpful for our company and customers.

We see the benefits maybe a week after deployment. In that week, the publisher has to do data reduction. We have to work with FlashArray, but FlashArray has to do its work. After a week, I can see FlashArray is reducing the storage usage.

FlashArray's data reduction and NAS features are incredible. Its performance is the best I've worked with. FlashArray's admin page offers a single pane of glass view. It's the best administration page. It's the easiest to use and understand. 

If I need to change or troubleshoot the dashboard, I cannot do it without calling support. If I want to move something critical, I cannot do it by myself. The dashboard blocks me from changing those critical things.

I have used FlashArray for around a year. 

I rate FlashArray nine out of 10 for stability. Our uptime has been 100 percent for the past year. 

We don't use Evergreen to scale up Pure Storage, but it can help us if our FlashArray is old or full. When that happens, it enters Evergreen and allows us to renew our architecture without downtime. 

I rate Pure Storage support 10 out of 10. We called support with one problem. Technical support was fast. 

Positive

I previously used Dell Data Domain. I switched because our Data Domain was old and FlashArray provided better service than the new Data Domain, so we decided to switch.

FlashArray is the easiest thing I've ever deployed. You just rack it and connect it to the network. There isn't any more configuration. Including pre-deployment, one of my more complex jobs took two or three days. I deployed it with one teammate. 

FlashArray is expensive, but the quality justifies the price. 

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray 10 out of 10. Pure Storage is the best in the world for IT companies. If you want the best performance, you have to choose Pure Storage.

In terms of Pure Storage FlashArray, I am using the iSCSI protocol. We are building virtual machines on it. It is like a data store on the ESXi hypervisor. VMware virtual machines are built on it.

Its compression ratio helps to reduce the storage footprint. We have bigger models such as FlashArray XL 150 for one petabyte of requirements in my organization. In a single pane of glass, I can see latency, IOPS, and performance data for 24 hours.

We can easily register the hosts and host groups for clusters. If there are multiple hosts in the cluster, I can group them. There are also features for volumes and volume groups.

We were able to realize its benefits after some time. If there is enough data, you can realize its benefits quickly, but when data is not enough, it will not give the expected results. It can take four to six weeks for the data to be added by different business lines.

The deduplication and the compression, particularly the compression ratio, are important features.

The dashboard is nice. It is easy to manage compared to other storage solutions such as Dell EMC.

Currently, Pure Storage support does health checks. It would be beneficial to have a health check command that can be run from the CLI to ensure that all hardware components are functioning properly rather than having to enable remote access and connect to support for a health check.

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

I have not seen much downtime with Pure Storage FlashArray.

Scaling FlashArray is not difficult and is relatively easy.

The support is very quick, with account managers available around the clock due to the global nature of the company. They are spread across the US, EMEA, and APAC regions. We have multiple account managers available and designated support engineers as well. We get an initial response to our email within 15 minutes to 30 minutes.

Positive

I have experience with Dell Storage solutions like PowerMax and PowerStore, which use FlashArray disks. Dell's Extreme IO was a product similar to FlashArray that I used in the past, but its success is uncertain.

Dell has more hybrid solutions. Pure Storage is mostly focused on the FlashArray line of products. The firmware upgrades with Pure Storage are seamless and pretty quick. Pure Storage might also have an advantage from a cost perspective.

The initial setup is not difficult. After I have the management and other things in place and the box is available, with the help of Pure Storage support, it just takes about 45 minutes to an hour for a small capacity storage, such as 100 terabytes. For a larger capacity storage, it takes a couple of hours.

I have done the re-IP as well and moved the storage from one data center to the other data center. It is not that difficult.

The hardware maintenance is taken care of by Pure Storage support. We do not need to do any maintenance ourselves.

One person is sufficient for deployment, handling tasks like management and connectivity set-up.

Dell and Pure Storage offer competitive pricing, but Pure Storage might have a slight advantage.

As primary storage for structured data, Pure Storage FlashArray with the NVMe protocol is great. It works well for enterprise databases such as Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle Database.

For those considering FlashArray, ensure that from a networking standpoint, three management IPs are available. Determine connectivity requirements, whether using FC or iSCSI, and have the necessary switches ready.

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