Pure Storage FlashBlade Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is for the database masking and testing. 

We have an improved the lifecycle of database testing and has improved QA in the space that we use it for. 

Storage has been simplified for us in the way that it's easy to manage. Their automatic monitoring really helps when things break or are about to break. They see a problem coming and alert us even before our own system does. 

It's good to have a good way to back up high-performance type arrays like this,
especially if we could back it up on the back end versus the front side where things are impacted.

As a Pure Storage platform, the cost-benefit is hugely based on the deduplication and capacity. Otherwise, we would have had to have a bunch of arrays to support that capacity. The physical footprint of the array, the capacity that it's using, and the high performance are all things that we have seen benefit from.

The most valuable features would be the IOPS performance and the ease of management. 

In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready. 

We can add a bunch of compute, we could forever compute, but the array at some point comes to a screeching halt. I think if there's a way to make the flash array go wider that would be the better way to go in the long run.

We have had this solution for two years and we haven't had any issues with it. 

Salability does have its limits but we haven't had any limit or scalability issues in the area we use it.

We considered building our own solution but at some point, we realized that there was a higher risk to that. We ended up choosing Pure Storage because they could prove that other customers had successful implementations with minimal issues that was a huge plus. 

The initial setup was as easy as it can get. 

We used a reseller for the deployment called Trace 3. The consulting and integration of the whole solution was done by them and then turned over to my team. There was an issue that we didn't know how that was happening. It was more of an application team problem that they didn't come to us before starting all of that. 

In terms of performance analytics, due to our own fault, we tend to use a lot of capacity faster than we think. Because of our slow internal processing, we can't add capacity fast enough when we need it. We know it is capable of easily adding capacity.

I would rate this solution a nine and a half and I would definitely recommend this solution to a colleague at another company. It's very stable, efficient and it performs very well. 

We're using Pure Storage FlashBlade for backup purposes. We're also planning to deploy the product for the big data environment.

What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features.

An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced.

The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems.

I've been working with Pure Storage FlashBlade for four years.

From a stability perspective, Pure Storage FlashBlade is very stable, and the technology is great, so I have no doubts about the product, stability-wise.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is a scalable solution, but it's less scalable than VAST Data.

The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade has been getting worse. Previously, support was very good, but as Pure Storage grew as a business, the quality of support has worsened.

As a partner, I serve the customers, and I deal with the Pure Storage FlashBlade support team a lot. In the past, an experienced engineer would be assigned immediately whenever I open a ticket. Nowadays, I deal more with level-one engineers, so issue resolution takes longer. The support team now takes up more time in terms of understanding the problem, so the quality of support for Pure Storage FlashBlade has worsened.

I'm a new partner for VAST Data, and I don't have much experience with it yet, but I've used PureStorage FlashArray. I can't compare Pure Storage FlashBlade with PureStorage FlashArray, but I can say that Pure Storage FlashBlade is stable, strong, fast, and modern, and it's an enterprise-class object storage product.

The deployment of Pure Storage FlashBlade took less than one day.

You can get ROI from Pure Storage FlashBlade, depending on the use case. The product has a specific ROI for fast restoration. Its ROI would also be different when you're using it for data management. For machine learning or AI purposes, you'll also get a different ROI from Pure Storage FlashBlade. As a backup solution, you can expect ROI from it in four years.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is a hardware appliance, and it's very expensive if you compare its price with other solutions. You can get the same features and benefits from its competitor, VAST Data, but for half the price of Pure Storage FlashBlade.

I've evaluated VAST Data.

I'm a partner of Pure Storage FlashBlade.

My rating for Pure Storage FlashBlade is eight out of ten.

My advice to anyone planning on using Pure Storage FlashBlade is that it's a very important storage solution, and I would especially recommend it for data management platforms. Pure Storage FlashBlade will serve you well when you need to make data decisions and when you want better performance. I would also recommend Pure Storage FlashBlade for business intelligence environments.

I am a reseller.

The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services.

It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release.

I have been working with Pure Storage FlashBlade for three years.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is very stable and very reliable.

Pure Storage FlashBlade is very scalable.

Technical support responded very quickly, and they are very professional.

We have always used NetApp FA Series. When compared with Pure Storage FlashBlade, I would recommend Pure Storage FlashBlade. It's easier to set up, easy to expand capacity, and very easy to upgrade.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to set up.

I feel that the price could always be lowered. It would be nice.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using this solution. It's good in machine learning and virtual machines.

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

We have been using it for data center consolidation. It is our primary source for data center applications: production, development, and test. 

It creates a much smaller footprint. Previously, we had a large data center with 30 racks with 12 racks of storage, and we are now down to one. So, a huge electric savings along with freeing our data center ports.

The most valuable feature is its  ease of use. We went from six different storage vendors down to one. The training for the operations staff and others that had to deal with this on a provisioning standpoint was much easier to do. The process was seamless and very easy to learn.

It has absolutely simplified our storage because the dashboards on the consoles show a clear understanding of where you are, and it is also very easy to provision. This been a big help for our teams.

I am very happy with the latency, availability, and reduction rates.

On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge.

We are looking at Pure Storage's capabilities to move off-premise into the cloud.

Stability has been rock solid.

Scalability has not been an issue. Performance has been great. It is just the capacity and dedupe part, which is a little light.

We used technical support during the install process, and they were helpful.

We switched to Pure Storage as a decision to get away from Dell EMC.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was very easy to set the IP addresses up and the rest of the initial parameters up, then go.

Our consultants did the installation with the help of Pure Storage's technical support.

We have mainly seen a reduction in TCO because of operational efficiencies. It used to take us a lot longer to get servers and storage provisioned. Now, the speed of the disk, plus the ease of use, has made great improvements.

We used a reseller for the purchase.

We were in a build a new data center mode, and Pure Storage was one of three option that we considered. Then, it became our final option.

The other options were HPE 3PAR Flash Storage and Dell EMC XtremIO Flash. While all three solutions are comparable in price, we chose Pure Storage because of politics. 

It works quite well for us, and I would recommend it.

From a standpoint of pure performance, it's moving. We've been very happy with it. 

I use Pure Storage FlashBlade for object storage. 

The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective. 

Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration. 

I have been working with the product for a year. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

Pure Storage FlashBlade is very scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Pure Storage FlashBlade offers good proactive support. 

Positive

I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. It takes one hour to complete. 

I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten. 

We have enterprise clients for the product. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use Pure Storage FlashBlade for backups.

It's a very good product.

It is very easy to use, and it is very fast.

The integration with S3 needs some improvement.

There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket.

What FlashBlade can do with S3 buckets needs to be improved. Other things, such as NFS, are simple to implement, but S3 can benefit from improvements.

We have been using Pure Storage FlashBlade for three years.

I am totally satisfied with the stability of Pure Storage FlashBlade. It is very stable.

At this time, we don't have plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is great. The support is very fast.

We are also using FlashArray.

We have limited deployment of Flashblade.

I was not present for the installation, but I believe that it is simple. I don't think that it is complex.

One person is needed to deploy and maintain this solution.

We have evaluated various solutions and recently migrated from Dell EMC with the Cloud and Pure Storage Systems. The migration was done two years ago.

I would highly recommend Pure Storage and FlashBlade in particular.

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

The customer decides what he wants to do, and then we create a solution for them.

It's very easy to use.

At the moment, I can't think of anything that needs to be improved; however, the feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services. I know Pure has a company that's working on the cell system, but it's still not completely there yet.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashBlade for three years.

Stability-wise, it's fine; however, we have one system at a customer's site that has had a lot of problems over the last year — I think maintenance was required over seven times before everything was corrected. Now the system works fine, it's not a problem.

It's as scalable as we need it to be.

Their technical support is not an issue at all — they're great.

I have a little bit of experience with NetApp, but we don't sell the latest NetApp systems. In the past, we worked with NetApp — it's a good filing system.

For me, the initial setup is very straightforward. If there is something you have to change in the beginning, then you can just directly call support; however, as a partner, it's sometimes a little difficult to do. If we're doing some active cluster setups, then we always have to call support to integrate the active cluster — to enable the active cluster. That's something I think we could do by ourselves — that's something that could be changed.

The price is a little high, but I'm not the guy who is selling it to the customer — I only design the solution. Price-wise, somebody else's has to make a decision about it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

I would recommend this solution to other interested companies because it's extremely fast. That's the biggest reason why we recommend it to our customers. 

It helps our customers with their storage solutions. 

The ease of deployment and management has helped us simplify our storage. We also do not have to worry about capacity management as much. A lot of these things are native to Pure Storage.

Our availability is at nine nines.

• Deployment
• Cost per terabyte

They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution. 

I have been highly satisfied with the stability.

We are highly satisfied with its capacity management.

We have worked with the engineering team and professional services team. We have had no issues. They are excellent. 

Our customers asked us to change from our previous solution, HPE.

The initial setup is straightforward. Implementing Pure Storage end-to-end from procurement all the way through deployment, we have no issues.

We are the integrator.

Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO. The amount of reduction depends on how poorly they were previously doing at storage management.

Our customers have also seen ROI.

We also evaluate NetApp and Dell EMC. The reason that we chose Pure Storage was because the cost per terabyte was lower and customer demand.

Pure Storage should be the top contender for certain types of workloads.