Everpure FlashArray Reviews

We use it just for test purposes in our organization.

Data deduplication is one feature I found to be the most valuable in the tool. We don't use any special features in our organization.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for about six years. Also, I am using Pure Storage FA-420. I am a customer of the solution.

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

I can't comment on the solution's scalability since we use it in a test environment. From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable. It is only me who is using the solution in our company.

The solution's initial setup process was easy. It may look like a lot of work, but it is easy.

The solution is expensive.

It is an old storage we use for testing, and our production storage is IBM. It will be five years old since we are using the solution. We are also planning to buy a new storage solution. So, we are looking out into the market to see what we can buy.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it since I trust it is a great storage solution.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

Pure Storage FlashArray's overall speed is its most valuable feature.

Pure Storage FlashArray is painful in certain areas, and because of this, in my company, we wish it was made to be a bit more user-friendly, especially in a VMware environment, so that it can be made less of a cumbersome process. I don't know if its less user-friendly nature in a VMware environment is indicative of some of the encryption features and other stuff of Pure Storage FlashArray. Pure Storage FlashArray would just be easier to manage if it didn't have to jump through so many hoops.

I have experience with Pure Storage FlashArray. My company is a customer of Pure Storage FlashArray.

It is a stable solution. As long as you don't accidentally cut the power off in your company, the product remains stable, making it pretty reliable.

It is a scalable solution.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support a nine to ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of the product is complex.

Pure Storage FlashArray's team had to install the product in our company.

Cost-wise, I imagine that the product's price would probably give you a nosebleed if you were a younger company.

Pure Storage FlashArray is a solution that can be described as a product that functions amazingly fast in terms of speed once it is up and running.

In our company, we only semi-manage the product. Three people who look after server infrastructure, networking infrastructure, and virtual infrastructure in my company look after the product's maintenance.

I rate the overall product an eight to nine out of ten. I wish the product wasn't cumbersome to do certain things and should provide a little more flexibility.

Our primary use case for this solution is focused on enterprise solutions, a support solution that needs either performance, reliability or cost. For example, most companies have databases, virtualized workloads, or VDI workloads. So with those kinds of environments like the Block Storage, it is perfect because it switches very well with the cost, performance, and reliability ratio. Additionally, it's easy to deploy to benefit the IT team in the management costs.

We find the ease of usability and setup valuable.

Pricing could be better in comparison to other solutions. The amount of storage the customers receive is approximately 20% higher when you compare it with similar solutions. So it can be a problem when you are positioning the product.

We have been using the solution for seven years as partners and are currently working with the latest version.

The solution is highly scalable, but scalability is sometimes undervalued, but everyone can scale. In the case of Pure Storage FlashArray, our experience with upgrading the capacity only involved changing the controllers. So, for example, if you have 20 terabytes and want to go to 100, you only have to change the controllers when paying for that storage capacity upgrade. You can also include the controllers, and the controllers' upgrade does not impact production. You can do it without stopping, so the upgrade of the machines can start with the smallest to the biggest machine that can deploy up to five petabytes. If you cannot do it smoothly, you don't have to stop production and will not have a disruption.

Our experience with customer service and support has been very good. It is very good even though they are still growing, and they are very responsive to issues. They promise a 15-minute response time and are very good at keeping that promise.

The initial setup is straightforward. Two engineers are usually tasked with deployment.

Our return on investment is good.

The licensing cost is close to zero. Every new function or functionality is included when paying the annual maintenance. Our customers value it because the maintenance is always the same regardless of whether it's the first year, the seventh or the tenth year. Additionally, the products use the same operative system with new capabilities, like ransomware and safe mode. Another thing that is quite nice to have is outstanding performance. They can provide a lot of performance, so there is not a lot of difference. Still, efficiency is something customers value because the compression can be up to twice of the second competitor. I rate licensing costs a ten out of ten.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by improving upgrade prices.

We are using Pure Storage FlashArray for VMware data storage.

The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are management and administration user-friendliness, provisioning, and performance.

Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography.

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

Pure Storage FlashArray is highly stable.

Pure Storage FlashArray is scalable, but it has a 5 GB ratio for data which helps with the reduced need for more investment for it to be more scalable.

We are using the solution with approximately 20 VMware hosts.

I previously used other solutions.

The initial setup of Pure Storage FlashArray is straightforward. The time it took for our complete implementation took one week. However, it could be done in one day but we had some challenges.

We used the Pure Storage FlashArray team to do the implementation.

I recommend this solution for production because it has good performance and capacity management. 

My advice to others is they need to fit the solution to their needs. There are many models available and the one they choose is going to depend on the front-end data that they're going to accommodate in storage. Additionally, the latencies needed are important to consider, such as how many milliseconds they can tolerate and overall performance.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for storage. 

It has improved the way our organization functions by improving the resilience of our infrastructure by quite a bit. 

The tool size is good. We have a tool size and then each size has one Pure Storage and they form the active cluster. We can just access the data on both sides with a uniform access design.

The scalability is good.

It can do some replications. They're very easy to perform. 

We're quite happy with eh solution overall. I can't recall coming across any features that were lacking. 

There was some complexity in the initial setup.

While they've improved a lot, many features have been released recently and they are not that mature just yet. My understanding is they just released some features, for some transport services over the NVMe and then the file service. However, the file service is not so mature. I had some problems with the file service when we used it. 

Other new features, such as the active clustering over the FC, and the verification over the FC feature, we didn't use. We have to have a trial on it first before commenting on it.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

It's very, very, very stable. There are no performance degrades during any upgrade or replacement of the parts. 

The product is extremely scalable. 

There is only one person using the solution currently. 

I've dealt with technical support previously. Their response is fast and mostly very, very helpful. We just need to enable the remote console on the array and then they just can easily troubleshoot by themselves. That way, we do not need more time to work with them. They just fix the problem for us.

We also use HPE Nimble. This solution scales much better. That said, it is a bit more complex to implement when you compare it to Nimble. 

There are two different classes in our design. We put more critical applications on Pure due to its stability and resilience. Less important or less critical applications or servers are on Nimble. However, the capacity of Nimble is far larger than Pure Storage.

The initial setup is more complex than the Nimble. Mostly the configurations must be done by the Pure engine at the back end.

It took two or three weeks to deploy the solution.

You only need one person to deploy and maintain the solution.

We handled the initial setup by ourselves. We did not need any outside assistance from any integrators or consultants. 

With Pure Storage, we buy the array and then all the features can be enabled on that.

It is more expensive than Nimble. The price is likely double Nimble's.

You do not have to pay for any extra features or add-ons. Everything is included. 

I'm a customer.

We use the Pure Array X model with a version of Purity 5. Recently, we bought the Pure C series.

We use it with a private cloud and on-premises as well.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I help our customers build FlashArray. 

It is always out of the box, and ready to use. 

It is very simple to set up, and very simple to use.

The interface is easy to use.

It is very easy to implement.

It falls far short of protocol support. Our customers frequently ask us how we can use NFS or if we can use it as a copy or something similar. If you have any suggestions, I believe they could use more protocol, and have easier automation.

Automation could be simplified. For example, we can ask the storage to create a folder and then monitor it automatically.

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

Pure Storage FlashArray is a very stable product.

Pure Storage FlashArray is a scalable solution.

I am also working with Pure FlashArray X series and Pure Storage FlashBlade.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price is very reasonable when compared to other solutions.

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

Pure Storage FlashArray is applicable for virtual environments, e.g. CSS, VR, and YouTube platforms. It's an NVMe data storage platform.

One of the things I like about Pure Storage FlashArray is that it has a high data reduction average, e.g. 4.5.

Pure Storage FlashArray is also advantageous for data centers in terms of rack space for maximum capacity.

Many high-end platforms from other vendors like Dell EMC or Hitachi, their backend has Active/Active architecture, unlike Pure Storage FlashArray which doesn't utilize an Active/Active architecture on the backend. Instead, it has an Active/Passive architecture. Its frontend is Active/Active, but its backend is not. I see this as a disadvantage of this product.

The highest storage capacity of Pure Storage FlashArray is the petabyte, and it should be expanded. This is what I'd like to see in the next release.

This product is stable. It's working very well. Our elementary response time is 0.5 milliseconds, and with 100,000 IOPS in our virtual environments.

The technical support for Pure Storage FlashArray is good. Support is quick and responsible. We get quick responses from the team.

The initial setup for Pure Storage FlashArray was easy. It was completed within one hour.

Pure Storage FlashArray was implemented by a local product solutions team.

I'm working for a telecommunication company, and we use different products.

We have five people in our company working with this product.

My advice to people who want to implement Pure Storage FlashArray is that it's a good NVMe solution, has a lower response time, and also good for entry-level storage purposes, e.g. small offices, small to medium-sized business, etc. It's also easy to use, e.g. comparable to an iPhone in terms of ease of use. This solution also works very well on the Active/Active version, for combining two storage.

I'm giving Pure Storage FlashArray a score of nine out of ten.

We use it for block storage workloads. We don't use a lot of the features on it.

It has reduced provisioning time. There is ease of management.

The availability and ease of use are the big features. 

Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see.

I have been working with this solution for about three years.

It has been really stable.

That's the only feature that isn't as good. It doesn't scale as large as some of the competitors, but they have started to make them bigger.

We probably have a dozen or so admins who use it, including me. I take care of its maintenance. It is pretty light in terms of maintenance.

It is being used extensively. We'll be increasing its usage. I'm on the networking side. Our IT group is a pretty heavy user too. Both of us will be increasing its usage, but their scale is a little bit bigger than ours.

I would rate them really high. On a scale of one to five, I'd give them a four.

Dell EMC and NetApp would be the two big ones that we used before. We switched because of the cost and the ease of use. Those are the two big ones. In terms of the cost, a lot of it was just introducing a second vendor.

Its setup was really straightforward. It took about half a day. It is pretty quick. All the cabling and facility stuff is usually the longest part.

We had the vendor do most of it. It is like a team, and there is usually one installer guy. Our experience with them was great. Our account team with them is really good. 

Its setup is easier than you think. It is a pretty straightforward deployment.

They have been correcting a couple of things. One of them was that they didn't really scale that large. So, we had to deploy a lot of arrays. They have started to make them bigger now. In addition, until recently, they didn't do a file on the FlashArray. Now, you can share files on it. They recently implemented that, but we haven't tried it yet.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It does everything we wanted to do.