Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

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 use the private deployment model of this solution. In terms of our cloud provider, we use Azure, we are signing on with AWS, and we'll be using vCloud in the next quarter.

It replaced an earlier tier. It replaced 3PAR Storage and gave us faster performance than the single databases.

VMware has benefited our IT organization because we're 100% VMware, everything is running on it.

We are running VMware on Pure. Our main driver was the performance for SQL servers. The joint solution has helped my organization in the way that the databases run faster. 

My organization is taking advantage of the VM integration developed by Pure. We've deployed it. I think it gives the storage administrator some additional insights on metrics. I don't think we're using it to actually manage the data stores. He's getting more insights on metrics. Pure has a VAAI plugin that allows you to manage the data stores. We're not doing that, but I think it gives them heightened analytics in addition to SD-Pure1, a web interface. The integrations have helped in the way that they're another dashboard to have. Somebody could think that the databases are running slow and our database administrator can look at that tool and say, "No, it's unique to your SQL databases, it's not the other VMs on the data stores."

The ease of management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I would have also said that it's pretty fast but now our SQL servers are starting to beat it up pretty bad.

A year ago they promised that they would be able to read through the database encryption with more metric and they have not delivered on that patch, which is significant because it gives us back so much more storage room. We want to be able to read through the encryption.

It's very stable. 

It's scalable. You can hit a point where you fill up enough drives in the shelves. We're at that point now where we've got to expand. We've got to add another shelf.

Their technical support is good.

We have switched to EMC. They gave us more array for less money. 

The initial setup was very simple.

We used an integrator for the deployment.

Our ROI is that we're still running. It's been two years later, and we're still up and running with no downtime.

We looked at HP, NetApp, Pure, and EMC. EMC gave us better-performing storage for a better price. 

I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To get to a perfect ten they should be more competitive in their pricing. It's expensive. It's premiere storage but there are other premiere providers out there as well that are beating them on price, at least in our case.

The encryption is another area that needs improvement. It was huge. Right now we're at 82% on the Pure array. If they come up with that and pass to read through the more metric encryption, we would probably get 30 or 40% available disk space back, so it's huge.

We primarily use the solution for internal storage for all virtual environments. We also use it for the SQL database, Oracle and private cloud. The storage is used to manage the internal private environment.

Compared to what we used to use, it has improved the utilization. It has improved the statistics for all the users as well. It's better, and people are happy, but we're not quite there yet.

The joint solution has helped my organization. The users are more satisfied. They were looking for better performance, which they got once we moved them into Pure Storage compared to what we had before. Now they are trying to add more and more applications because they're getting better performance and stability. There's a lot of stability now. We have fewer problems, fewer outages.

The solution has a lot of automation features that helped us to deploy the environment faster and to speed the of rate integration. Integration has helped because it helps us to understand the user's requirements. Deployment is done faster, and their applications are more secure. They are reassured that their data is saved in their environment. 

The solution needs better IOPS for the storage. That's where most of the user requirements come from.

We would like to see better troubleshooting aspects. It helps us if we can find out where the problem is. Right now, it's difficult. Sometimes it's difficult to pinpoint the issue. If they had more visibility and more troubleshooting feature built into the tool that would really help.

The solution is stable. There are less complaints, less downtime. That helps us to work in that environment more effectively.

The scalability options are very nice because you can scale it much better and faster. The scalability was there in the previous environment also, but this is far better than what we had before. It basically helps the user in case they are looking for more storage. We can scale it much faster.

Technical support is pretty good. They helped us with a holiday show in case we needed anything. So far, the product is doing well with less downtime, so we didn't have that much opportunity to use support. But anytime we've needed them, it's pretty good and all the issues are dealt with much faster.

We used EMC in the past. The reason we switched was the requirements of the users. They need better IOPS and better performance. That made us move to Pure.

The initial setup was straightforward. The hardware was installed by the vendor and the integration and the configuration pieces were simple.

We did evaluate other solutions, including IBM. The other vendors also had a Flash, but Pure was the best because of the performance. That's why we shortlisted them.

We are using the private cloud deployment model on the Azure platform.

The solution benefits our IP presentation. We have a lot of cost savings. We do a lot of virtualization compared to buying physical hardware. That's a major chunk of cost-savings for the company. 

We are running VMware on Pure. It offers better performance. The utilization and the requirements from the users suggest that they want to move into Pure.

I would definitely recommend that others go for this solution. They can start slow, but they can surely move forward.

I would rate this solution seven out of ten. I would rate it higher if the solution could help us troubleshoot better and if the performance itself was even better. The users sometimes complain that it's still slow.

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.

Our primary use case of this solution is to manage our virtual environment and storage so our entire VMware environment runs on Pure. 

The solution increases the overall speed of our systems. We run our virtual desktops off of them and there was a noticeable improvement once we moved from our old sand to this new sand. One could tell, the minute we switched to this program, everything ran a lot faster.

VMware benefits our IT board because all our servers are virtual, so it helps keep our footprint small. We spend less on hardware because all our servers are virtual. 

I find the speed of the solution its most valuable feature. It is really fast and it is also very easy to use. You can basically set it up and forget about it. You don't have to manage it on a day-to-day basis. I also like the plugins that go into beta where you can see there. For instance, if I need to extend a datastore I can go straight to the plugin and extend the data store, refresh the VAs, and see the new store. I don't have to log in and use my credentials, so I save time and it is easy.

We only want to manage our virtual environment so this program has all the features we need. We're pretty straightforward customers. I don't see anything that needs to improve as we only use the standard features. 

Once we've set everything up and running, we haven't really had an issue with it. So it's really stable.

Pure is our primary enterprise storage. We have a smaller one with about a 120 servers and a little over 400 virtual desktops. We have one 20 terabyte model and a 10 terabyte model. I believe it is scalable.

I had to contact customer support when a drive failed as I was doing a couple of OS upgrades. The service was pretty good. They knew what the problem was and they were able to remove in by enabling remote features. They shipped out a replacement and we swapped it out and shipped it back. I am satisfied with the technical support.

We used an older program, but it was too slow. The main reason for switching over to run our VMware on Pure was the speed and, after several meetings with other vendors, we decided to go with the all-flash model. We replace our programs every five years because we want the best performance.

It was pretty easy to set everything up. We used an integrator from Pure and we had to fill in a worksheet beforehand, so we gave them all the information they needed, like IP addresses and ports. It took less than an hour. 

We looked at Pure, NetApp and Nimble. Pure is simple to set up and manage on a day-to-day basis. If you want to upgrade, you can simply call in and they do everything on their side. NetApp, for instance, requires you to be on top of firmware, drivers and updating. You must initiate the upgrades, do the upgrades, follow all the steps. With NetApp, you need a lot of insight to manage it and it's difficult if you have only one person dedicated to that. 

I am a firm believer that everything has room for improvement, so I rate this nine out of ten.

With Pure Storage FlashArray we have been able to deploy several thousand VDI servers, virtual machines, very quickly and efficiently. We were also are able to virtualize 80% of our workload, and we are planning to get 90 to 94% of our workload virtual. That's a huge reduction in the cost of hardware.

What I like most about this solution is that it is simple to bring in, install, and get it going. You can get it installed in a few days.

What's more, the compression ratio that we're getting is that our database portion is pretty high, so it saves a lot of money.

We have had no issues with the stability so far.

The solution is very scalable because it is fairly smooth and easy to upgrade. 

The technical support has been pretty good. The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing.

Pure was the first solution we used and now we use a couple more. One of them is an EMC product and then we also have a new start-up called Vector, so we currently use three solutions.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward and the integration was very easy to do. There were no hidden features and the GUI was very straightforward. 

Traditionally we have been buying massive storing arrays from EMC and from Hitachi, but most of them were built for very high tier applications. For VDI with your desktop, you really don't need that so it was easier for us to go for an array that used high-speed devices, providing Hadoop capabilities because the nature of your desktops are literally the same. So we needed to look at newer technology, and this really was one of the first ones to be there, and it was very popular. We did a study on the market and found that VR was one of the leaders in this space, so we brought them in.

We ran into some issues with the program at first and we had to work around those issues to fix our problems. So at the end of the day, it wasn't really a smooth ride. It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure. That's why I would give it an eight or a nine out of ten. But definitely not a 10.

We use the solution on-premises and each array has a different use case. We have VDI, SQL, and General and the program provide better integration between the management and visibility of the solution. Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integration developed by Parrot and this gives us a lower level administrative access to more admins that don't have a background in storage.

VMware is extremely beneficial to our IT organization because we can scale as we increase our usage.

The solution has great efficiencies because it has scalability. It also becomes the core between our synergy of all our platform systems across the United States.

In the next release of the solution, I would like to see Vormetric native block encryption.

The solution is rock solid. Very stable.

The scalability of the solution is extremely costly.

The technical support is fair and the team was helpful.

We previously used Hitachi, 3PAR, and HP but we had performance limitations.

The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply plug it in and turn it on.

An initial return on investment is easily visible. But scalability to the cost doesn't really show the investment costs. We're investing too heavy on the cost without seeing the value of the array or the efficiencies.

I am not sure what the costs for the solution are but it is embedded in the solution support.

I rate this solution eight out of ten because I saw a lot of growth beyond the performance capabilities. I do, however, want to see improved costs, integration, and encryption. Those are the big ones.

My advice to others would be to use your pre-sale targets as the layouts, as well as all your mitigated controls and requirements. Then forecast the capacity and performance metrics prior to your purchase.

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.