Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

We use the solution for the vendor support. It's a banking software system. It's an IBM system and it requires some Pure Storage for the backend and SSDs for performance. The vendor supports Pure Storage. 

It saved a lot of space, as far as physical space in our data center. The old sand took up an entire rack and this entire system to about 6U. It's about 1/10th of the space and the power too. You get those power savings and space. The speed has also vastly improved. It's a lot faster than what we had before. We've been running VMware for over 10 years now, so we're all virtualized at this point. The solution has helped us to virtualize everything. 

Pure allows us to upgrade hardware anytime we want and not have to worry about converting everything. It makes everything easier to switch from one vendor to another if we want to. We just recently updated our sand from a Dell EMC. It allowed us to move it seamlessly without having to do anything with the software because it's all VMware.

The speed is the most valuable feature, along with the ease of getting it connected. We were able to get it online in less than a day. 

We're pretty complex. Back there, we've got three or four different systems. It's important that we have something that's easy to manage so we don't have to learn something completely new. This solution offers a GUI that you can just set up and it's ready to go. We had it up and running in three or four hours.

I haven't had any issues with stability. The solution has run since the first day we implemented it and so far has done everything they promised.

We haven't had to scale out yet because the solution is new to our organization, but I have heard it's pretty easy to do. Right now, we have a capacity of about 100 TB. We don't plan to scale right now. When we bought it, we sized it to allow for about two years of growth. So unless something unexpected happens, we should be okay.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We deployed it in our VR site first. We got it set up in VR and made sure everything was working. Then we brought it into production and deployed it on the production side.

We tested it first on the VR site. We personally didn't test a unit, besides our VR site, which was about two weeks. Our vendor-approved it and they used it. We went on the advice of our vendor and got the system.

We implemented the solution with the assistance of a vendor. 

Our experience with that vendor was good. They had everything up for us and there were no problems. Everything worked. They pre-configured it before they brought it out and then they just set it up. 

So far, I'm not sure if there is an ROI, as the solution is brand new. It's too soon to tell.

We have a package deal on the solution because we bought it through a software vendor, so they packaged it with their solution. I don't know what the individual costs would be for the Pure side of it.

It was a little costly. The price was ultimately higher than both of the other solutions that we evaluated. I'd say that's the only downside.

We looked at two other solutions but we liked that Pure seemed a bit easier to use. That, and we had recommendations.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

VMware was one of the primary drivers when choosing Pure. One of the banking vendors that we use as a primary banking system had limited vendors that they support for storage and Pure was one of them. It was also recommended by a different credit union, which is why we went with them.

I would rate this solution eight or nine out of ten.

I would definitely recommend them. They're recommended for a reason. They're not the cheapest, but the performance is, from what I read, the best, and it's easy to manage, so it's worth the extra cost.

We use the private on-premise deployment model. Our primary use case of this solution is for virtual machines. We just use it as storage for our vCenter environment.

It has improved my organization in the way that we have high reliability and faster access to our data.

It has improved our IT organization in the way that we are able to provide systems to our customers quickly and provide high availability and reliability for their applications. 

We are running VMware on Pure. Our main driver was speed. The joint solution has helped our organization through speed of delivery and speed of applications.

The top-tier support and reliable storage are the most valuable features of this solution. 

In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption.

It's highly stable. It's one of our biggest successes. 

It's been really easy to expand storage with no downtime. It's one of the things we like about it. 

Their technical support is great. 

We knew we needed to switch to this solution because the industry is going away from spinning disks. We were on spinning disks, and the whole industry is going away from that. 

We are still using IBM but we are not happy with it. IBM has taken old technology and tried to make it new. Pure has started from the ground up and built it.

The integration was straightforward. 

Pure Storage did the integration for us. 

Our costs are around $100,000.

We also evaluated Nimble, EMC, and HPE 3PAR. We ended up going with Pure because of the architecture, speed, and support.

I would rate it a ten out of ten for its reliability, speed, and support. The support is awesome.

We use our Pure Storage FlashArray system for all storage allocations and management tasks, accessed through its standard graphical user interface.

My team is responsible for operating and maintaining our storage applications, including hardware replacement and vendor coordination with Pure Storage. The implementation of Pure Storage FlashArray has been successful due to its reliability and user-friendly interface, which has minimized disruptions and allowed for efficient workload management.

Pure Storage FlashArray's single pane of glass simplifies administration, particularly for testing, offering benefits for all users.

The system's wide range of configuration options allows for the use of various products and adaptable cost structures for different storage scenarios. Pure Storage also presented opportunities for business growth and expanded access, with the primary benefits being its performance and user-friendly interface.

Pure Storage FlashArray simplifies maintenance and management with its intuitive GUI, making storage allocation and other processes easy to understand, even for beginners. This ease of use is a significant benefit throughout the entire implementation process.

From my limited experience with Pure Storage FlashArray, I haven't encountered any significant areas needing improvement. However, enhanced documentation and beginner-friendly guidelines would benefit users with less configuration experience.

I have been using it for almost three years.

I would rate the stability of Pure Storage FlashArray eight out of ten.

Pure Storage offers a wide range of configurable products that can help expand our infrastructure to suit various scenarios, providing business growth opportunities.

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

Customer service is quite good.

Positive

At the time we were moving to Pure Storage FlashArray, we were also  using  vendors like Dell EMC and Hitachi. I'm not clear why the business chose Pure Storage as well for the storage deployment, as I am more into the administrative and supporting side.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray eight out of ten.

We have deployed Pure Storage FlashArray in various data centers across multiple countries and testing environments. We have over 1,000 users in our organization.

Pure Storage FlashArray requires maintenance to avoid issues.

I recommend Pure Storage FlashArray due to its simplicity and attractive features. There's no particular reason not to recommend it.

It's a very simple tool to use with extremely low latency and high performance.

Pure Storage FlashArray has improved the performance of applications.

Feature-wise, the solution provides direct flash storage.

Improvement-wise, Pure Storage FlashArray must support real-time incidents. I think that Pure Storage should improve its pricing.

Currently, the solution fails to support file screening. I want to see the solution supporting file screening in the future.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for four years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. Presently, five people in my company use the tool.

I rate the solution's technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

My company saw a return on investment using the solution as it helped us reduce the time it took to access applications and reduced the space required in our data center.

Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

When considering the use of this solution, I suggest evaluating the price and taking into account its performance and potential to reduce the space in the data center. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

At the moment, we're migrating our complete infrastructure onto Pure Storage. All of our storage is going onto it.

We are using its latest version.

I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is.

Its price could be cheaper. It is not the cheapest one out there, but I'm not directly involved in the figures and negotiations. 

In terms of features, we are really happy with it. We haven't had it long enough to give feedback on that.

I have been using this solution for a year now.

So far, it has been brilliant. We haven't really had it long enough to judge it.

It seems pretty good, but we haven't really tested it.

We have about a hundred users. We will possibly increase its usage. It will be done slowly.

It has been really easy to use. Their support has been very helpful.

We were using another solution. We switched because it was very old, and we were looking at something that was an SSD. 

I was not involved in the initial setup. For its deployment, we had a couple of engineers.

It is not the cheapest one out there. We're paying yearly, but I'm not 100% sure.

We evaluated Pure and NetApp, and we eventually went with Pure. A positive point with NetApp was the price.

If it's financially viable for you and you can afford it, it's worth it.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

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.

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.

We have a contract with Pure Storage, and we use it for VMware and database server storage provisioning.

We have multiple applications in the environment, and we are provisioning from Pure Storage.

The single pane of glass is important for us because we can view all the array details in one place. We can see the details about the capacity, utilized space, available or free space, alerts, and performance in one place. This overview is important.

It did decrease the storage footprint compared to other models and storage, but I do not have the metrics.

It helps to reduce the downtime.

We are not using any replication features. We only have storage provisioning, so the provisioning feature is good. The compression and deduplication are good.

It does not require much improvement. They can maybe improve the file services. The focus is on block storage. They can also include file services such as NAS shares and CIFS shares. There should be provisioning of the file shares from a unified array.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for one year.

There is no lagging or crashing. It is quite stable.

It is good in terms of scalability. We can scale up to a higher number.

I have interacted with their technical support. They were good at providing support when I requested.

Positive

We have different flash array systems from HPE GreenLake. Pure Storage is better than the HPE GreenLake flash array. Performance-wise, Pure Storage is better. The cost of Pure Storage might be high, but I am not sure.

It is on-prem. I do not know about its initial deployment because I was not there at the time of deployment. So, I do not know if its benefits could be realized immediately after the deployment. However, it has been effective in terms of utilization and capacity. We are now planning for different storage and doing the migration from Pure Storage to others because of the EOC limit that we have.

In terms of maintenance, there are firmware updates. We have to schedule a change window and then update the firmware.

It is good. Working with it is easy. Provisioning is smooth and good. The GUI and everything else is good. You can just do training with Pure Storage and get on with your storage tasks.

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