Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

From the first test that we have conducted, we are very satisfied with this solution.

The interface is easy to use.

At this point, I don't know anything that they could provide in a better way.

We are not sure what needs improvement at this time, as we have not started using it in the production environment.

It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated.

We are in the process of implementing this solution, but we haven't started using it in the production environment.

The vendor was helpful during our implementation.

The initial setup was easy, with help from the vendor.

We have had help from the vendors, they have been very close to us, helping us all the way.

We decided to go with the Pure Storage solution because of the business model that they presented to us.

We have hired Pure Storage and a distributor to help out at the beginning but mostly we deal with Pure Storage directly.

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

We are basically using it for the department of space and online education purposes. We are using its latest version.

I like its speed. It has all the features that I need.

Its price needs improvement. Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have about 81 users.

I have interacted with them. They respond very fast to our queries.

I was using a Sun Microsystems product. Basically, the Sun Microsystems product is nothing but Hitachi Storage. They buy Hitachi Storage and label it as Sun Microsystems.

We tried it on our own and almost reached the final stage, but then we had some doubts. After that, Pure people came and helped us. It took about three to four hours to complete the whole installation.

We did it on our own. We had only two Admins for its deployment.

Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution.

I would recommend this solution. I am satisfied with this solution, and we plan to keep using this solution.

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

Our primary use case is to keep the disc for all the critical systems in the company.

The most valuable features are the replication of data and the continuous snapshot that we can take from the disc.

The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them.

This is the only problem that we have in the two years of working with Pure Storage and it is not an important problem. The interface that this solution has is really good. It senses all the errors. We get good support from the vendor. 

The price doesn't really matter. It's very expensive, it can be cheaper.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for around two years. 

Stability is very good. We haven't had any problems.

We have around 4,000 users. 

The initial setup was very easy. It took around two weeks. 

I would highly recommend this solution. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten. It has all the features we need. It tests all the software solutions that are currently available and that will be available in the future. You do not have to pay for any additional solutions that they purchase.

What I like most about this solution is the simplicity of the array.

The speed of the Pure FlashArray is very, very fast and nothing in the market can compare to it.

The education, compression, and the speed to perform these are astonishing.

The array is really resilient.

The price of this solution is high and should be lowered.

It is not possible to create a cluster on top of multiple arrays.

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

The stability of the Pure FlashArray is 100%.

With respect to scalability, it would be nice to create a LAN or a cluster on top of multiple arrays.

The technical support is 100% and they respond really quickly. Their Evergreen support plan is astonishing. They are a leader in this regard.

I have worked with similar solutions from IBM and NetApp. The advantage to those solutions is that you can create a LAN on top of multiple arrays.

The price of this solution is high.

With respect to comparing other solutions, when you put all of the features in a box, leverage them and migrate your application to one of these arrays, it will give you a lot of benefits. Some people have compared benchmark performance tests against other arrays and from my point of view, overall as a whole package when you sum everything up, Pure Storage is the winner.

Overall, this is a very good solution and my main complaint is about the price. Out of all of the arrays that I have worked with, Pure Storage is one of the better ones.

I highly recommend both the solution and the company. My suggestion to anybody who is considering this product is to do the mathematics regarding the budget and the price really well because the rate can be expensive when it comes to upgrading in the future, either scaling it up or out.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Pure Storage is for disaster recovery.

We use AWS for our cloud provider.

It's fast because it's Flash storage so the IT team doesn't have to worry about it.

Besides virtualization and the benefits associated with that, we're a Workspace ONE customer, we're going to be starting that deployment Q4 of this year and we're looking forward to improving the patient experience with the doctors and the rest of the medical staff.

We are delivering a better experience for doctors and the other staff that deliver desirable outcomes. Again, it's easy on the IT staff. It's important to have infrastructure that you can rely on and not have to worry about failing.

We use SRM for VMware integration. The failovers with SRM are fantastic. It's fast and reliable. It just works, which is sometimes difficult to achieve.

The white glove customer service that I get is their greatest value. They even do the firmware upgrades for me. I don't have to worry about it.

The capability from Pure as far as sharing out files and things of that nature is a little bit lacking. However, I know it's coming so I'm not upset that it doesn't exist yet.

Their stability is second to none.

I'm confident it will grow as the hospital grows.

When I started at my current employer, our SAN was eight years old and out of support. It was very urgent that we replaced it immediately.

The initial setup was straightforward. Plug it in, then they show up to do the firmware upgrade. We connected the fiber channel, we put it on the network and within two hours we were moving workloads over.

We bought it from a reseller but we did the installation and design ourselves in-house.

We have received a return on our investment.

I have used NetApp, IBM, and EMC XtremIO in the past. We selected Pure because of its reputation. We also considered vSAN, but we ultimately went with Pure because of the ability to do things that vSAN couldn't do at the time. It has since changed. I don't know if that would change my mind about going with Pure, but I don't regret the decision.

Depending on their EMR, Pure is certified to work with many vendors including EPIC and MEDITECH, and they're a fantastic partner. Even from pre-sale to post-sales, I'm always in contact with the folks at VMware and Pure. They address any issues, problems, or questions I have. Their ability to help is endless.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. When the file services are available on Pure, it will absolutely be a ten.

We use the on-premise deployment model of this solution for the bank. We use AWS as our cloud provider. 

High speed has been an improvement for our organization.

We are using the private cloud version. I run it on vSphere, vCenter, and vRealize. 

It benefits our IT organization in the way that it's easier for the administrators to manage. 

The performance is the most valuable feature. 

There could be better storage.

I like this storage because it is very easy.

Scalability is good. 

I haven't needed to use support. My employees say their support very good.

The initial setup was easy and straightforward.

I don't know the exact cost but it's around $1,000.

The team that worked with this program say it's a very good program, so I'd recommend it.

My coworkers say it's very good, so I would give this a nine out of ten. For me, no product ever gets a ten, because nothing is perfect.

We use the private deployment model of this solution and VMware for our storage provider. Our primary use case of this solution revolves around our clients. We have different tiers of storage. We use the Pure Storage FlashArray for our tier-one storage, our higher-level storage to support not only multi-tenant clients but also our private cloud clients, and to provide them with an all-flash storage solution.

We used to use a product called XtremIO which was a pretty significant improvement on the old way of deploying storage which was through standalone SANDS and we also used EMC VMAX. That was really expensive. We saw a vast improvement when we switched over to using the Pure Storage model over the XtremIO. It just made us that much more competitive. We were able to offer those workloads to our clients, we sold more, and we keep selling it.

VMware absolutely benefited our IT organization. VMware has always been just above the rest in terms of virtualization. I was not part of the organization prior to VMware being a prevalent powerhouse like it is today. But I know that back in the day of our organization, we used to have every server in a single box. Now, we've trimmed down so much of our infrastructure as well as some of our other client's that we've moved to VMware and it's been a significant improvement.

We are and we aren't running VMware on Pure. We have our ESXi hosts are not running on Pure Storage but we use Pure Storage for the back-end data stores that we run. We don't necessarily run the Hypervisor on Pure, but we run a lot of our client's virtual machines on Pure Storage.

The main driver of running VMware on Pure is for more IOPS. It's a growing trend in the industry that we have to have more clients that have more IOPS and low latency. It's an ongoing battle with the industry. When it comes down to it there's going to be a higher demand for even lower latency; even more speed, and more IOPS. We haven't hit that quite yet, but it will happen. It's just the nature of the business.

The joint solution has benefited our organization. It's with the ability to have the tier-one storage from Pure Storage that's allowed us to not only sell more at a higher cost but also it's allowed us to separate certain workloads from others. We have the tier-one storage, then we have tier-two storage on a different provider that allows us to have more storage, but also to really just give Pure Storage to those that really need it. This provides better performance for those VMs.

For us, the most valuable feature is the compression and deduplication. Being able to deploy a three to one ratio for storage is absolutely critical in today's world with the growing need for storage and the growing need for more space. Everything needs more space. For us to have a solution that allows deduplication and that lets us deploy more on less.

It's a very stable solution. Even going through maintenances we can individually bring down certain nodes without any disruption in performance. It works really seamlessly with our current implementation.

The scalability of the solution is not as good as it probably could be. In regards to storage and SANDS, it's very difficult to have a scalable solution when you're talking about hardware stores. It's just really difficult to do that. Overall, I think Pure does a good job with scalability.

I don't interface with technical support too much. Overall whenever I've had to interface with technical support it's always been a very positive experience.

We previously used XtremIO. We knew we needed to switch because of the trends in the industry. It's always going be a battle for consumer-based demands. Consumers are always going to demand more, and more; now. What that means is that you need to build apps that are quicker, faster; or have a more sleek run without as much code, or they're more highly available. That's what it really comes down to.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

Pure Storage did the deployment for us. 

We have seen ROI. 

Pure was on our shortlist. There are not a whole lot of other competitors that do what Pure does. They architected their own SAND right from scratch and it's a versatile product.

It's a pretty simple and pretty straightforward solution. There's a lot of one pane of glass type of things that we have with Pure and I don't see much in terms of improvement.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. My advice to someone considering this solution is to just get it. 

We primarily use this solution for our SQL server in an on-premises deployment.

Having a dedicated array for our SQL server is very nice.

We are running VMware on Pure, and the main driver for that is because it is all-flash. Also, we wanted a dedicated solution for our SQL environment. Running on Pure has given us the ability to scale out our SQL environments. We tripled our environment in the past three years since implementing this solution, and we have not had any issues with the storage keeping up with the workloads.

We are making use of some of the VMware integrations that have been developed by Pure, but we are really waiting for the copy data management part.

We are really enjoying the speed of this solution. The amount of throughput that we're getting is really nice.

In the next release of this solution, we would like to see automated copy data management for SQL Server.

We have had zero issues with stability once it is in. However, we have had issues with migrations to different cabinets or different arrays. We had one instance with an eight-hour outage in our primary data center because the upgrade to the controller failed, and the controller redundancy didn't work. It was an odd issue that we now have under control.

This solution scales well. The issue we had with stability is now under control, so we are able to scale out fine. We can just drop in new disks when we need them.

When we've had issues, technical support has been really good about resolving them quickly. I was on the call with them when we had the issue with the controller, and they were very, very helpful.

Our older solution was not very good. Pure increased our speed a lot. We needed to increase our storage because we were filling up the array. Our SQL footprint has greatly increased over the past three years.

This solution was chosen because we happened to be doing a POC when our previous solution failed horribly, and we moved our production to Pure. It was able to pick it up, which was the selling point.

The initial setup of this solution was pretty straightforward. It was a vanilla, out-of-the-box setup with nothing out of the ordinary. 

We used an integrator to assist us with the implementation and deployment of this solution. We were hands-off, but it seems that all went well because everybody is happy with it.

We have seen a good return on investment, mainly because we took our SQL Server workload out of the general population and we're able to get it separated, which is a huge advantage to us. The biggest boost is getting separation of duty.

I have used InfiniBand in the past. We are now looking at building a new data center, and the vendors on our shortlist are Pure and InfiniBand.

We are now starting to look at some of the copy data management tools that come with the new array.

This is now my go-to product, and I was an InfiniBand guy before. I like how there are database integrators on the Pure team that are actually there to help you tune your database workloads with their solution. I don't see that in a lot of other vendors.

This is a good product and the overall day-to-day workflow within it is great, but some of the issues that we've had with migrations bump it down slightly. The product is good, but it could be better.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.