Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

The primary use case is to run SAP applications on top of the flash solutions.

SAP is very important to our business. It's a key function. We are running ERP and CRM systems. Our systems run on-premise.

Running SAP on Pure Storage helps a lot without doing any further tuning to improve application performance. Our internal clients are happy.

The most valuable feature is the performance of Pure Storage underneath and that many applications, which are already integrated with it. I can use the system applications, e.g., for backup restore. Therefore, I don't need to buy them in addition to the product, as they are already part of the solution.

It helps to simplify storage, especially because we can do in-place upgrades and can grow on demand. I can pay on demand, so it helps me to simplify the usage of the storage.

It is super stable.

It has even improved the performance of SAP HANA.

The scalability is already there in both directions. You can scale the storage, as well as the compute.

The technical support comes out of one single stop. It is very helpful to have one single number to contact.

The initial setup was straightforward and simple.

Our HANA installation was a greenfield. So, we started the Pure Storage system with HANA.

We used a partner (integrator) for the deployment. We used Tech Data. Everything was based on design guides and reference architecture, our experience was very good.

There is some benefit in regard to total cost of ownership, because it's a condensed system. It saves a lot of space in the data center, saving power.

Pure Storage has not helped to reduce our HANA licensing costs.

I am pretty happy with the solution, as it is currently.

The primary use case is SAP. It work very well.

SAP is very important to our business. We are running all ERP solutions. Our configurations are run on-premise. 

It has easy implementation.

The most valuable feature is its simplicity. It simplifies the administration and backup.

The predictive performance analytics works well.

I would like to have support available in Spanish.

The stability is perfect. The reliability is 100% and the latency is always lower than 1 millisecond.

The speed is very high on SAP from running it on Pure Storage, and the power on SAP HANA is much faster.

The scalability is good.

I would rate the technical support as a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We deployed directly with Pure Storage.

The ROI is very positive for the reductions in HANA.

We have seen a 5:1 reduction in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). 

We are finding the TCO of flash to be lower than SSD implementations by 2:1.

It's a simple, robust solution, which is very stable.

Pure Storage is very good and quick for backing up SAP HANA.

All of our production, development, and workloads run on it.

We were previously a legacy storage system. After moving to Pure, the stability and performance both dramatically improved. 

We don't have to worry about storage anymore. Previously, we had to babysit our storage system, doing things like managing the volumes, looking at the capacity, predicting when would we run out of space, and replication work. All of those created a lot of challenges with the previous system. Since moving to Pure, we no longer have to worry. We defined the policies once, and things mostly work.

Pure Storage simplifies the management, overall.

Flash is the most valuable feature.

Scalability is one of the best features. You can quickly add more. You can swap out the drives with larger sizes, you can add more shelves. All of that is perfect - the whole concept of keeping it modular, where you can keep replacing components. That was definitely new several years ago. I would bet competitors are doing it now as well, but when they started, it was an innovation.

The real need that we have is around other backups. Obviously, it has its own snapshot concept but beyond that, having a separate backup system in the Pure ecosystem itself, in that space, would make it all integrated within a single organization and we wouldn't have to deal with multiple companies. That's an area where we thought Flash Blade could serve our needs, but it seems it can't.

Also, for one of our systems, the data reduction that we had initially anticipated when we bought Pure and we moved over is way lower than the expected reduction. It depends on the workloads, of course. But that has been a challenge at times. Because of that, we now need more storage. We are going to have to use the guaranty that they provide when you purchase: If it doesn't meet the overall capacity needs, then they will provide extra storage.

The stability, in general, has been perfect. 

The reason I gave a nine, not a ten, is the upgrades. With most upgrades we have had some kind of problem. They haven't been as smooth as they should have been.

The latest problem with which we are currently dealing, literally today, is that after the latest upgrade, the utilization went up, especially because of the systems space, which is consuming much more than it should. The duplication is not happening on time. Pure acts like it is a bug and that they have a new version with a fix for it. It goes into a cycle often: You keep upgrading and that new upgrade may have some other problem.

That's the primary worry regarding stability. Otherwise, the system works.

Technical support is good, but not as good as we would like. We have to get our Pure account team involved often, and they are stars. That always solves the problem. Support is available 24/7, but sometimes they're not as detail-oriented as we would like in investigating problems.

The setup was pretty straightforward. We recently added two more areas to our ecosystem and the set up was pretty good.

We used a reseller, SHI. Our experience with them was good.

Pure is expensive. But it comes with features so you get what you pay for. It's expensive compared to our old storage systems, but that is balanced by the reduction in the amount of effort human effort involved in& babysitting the storage system. So if you factor in everything, I don't know if the TCO is reduced, but it's not a concern for us, at least.

You get what you pay for. It is expensive, but it really works. So I would really recommend using Pure Storage.

The primary use case is for on-premise storage.

I have personally used this solution for 15 years, and now, four years with my current company.

It's a product that we hardly ever call tech support for, because it just works. The performance and ease of use are all there, which is what we were looking for. We don't want to always have to call into tech support for something. It's one of those products where you forget about it because it just works.

It is an easy to use product for all of my team members.

Granular growth of the storage needs improvement. Right now, if I wanted to add storage, I have to buy a whole shelf. It would be nice to just buy a few drives.

I would like to see data tiering to AWS.

We put a lot of stress on it, and it is very stable. We have only had one tech support call in the last four years for a hard drive replacement.

The scalability works. We are using between 30TB to 50TB.

I would evaluate the technical support as good, I have a team who calls in for support, if there an issue. They have not complained to me about any problems.

The configuration was very easy.

The cost of the storage needs improvement.

We also evaluated Dell EMC and locally attached storage. We chose Pure Storage because it had the best performance of all the products that we tested. Also, its virtualization performance is extremely fast, and it has good ease of use.

Definitely test the performance, compression, and deduplication. You are going to get more out of the storage than what you anticipated.

We are a Cohesity customer. We have use cases where we integrated Pure Storage with Cohesity.

It does everything they say it will do:

• It's very cost-effective compared to other big players.
• Adding storage to it after we bought it was not a shocking cost surprise.
• It integrates very well with VMware as we're using Site Recovery Manager from VMware.
• It's also tiny, it doesn't consume very much space. We're saving power and space in the data center. 
• It's really easy for us to manage.

I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason. I have other solutions that work, but I would use it if they had a little bit more fault-tolerance or if somebody explained to me that it's better than I think it is.

It's very stable.

Their support system has insight into errors on our SAN fabric that we can't see. They've brought attention to and raised awareness for us about things that we couldn't see, when we were experiencing problems. They helped us figure out how to fix them, helped us coordinate. They did not need to do that. It's just stellar support.

They're taking really good care of us. Their support is on the ball. They're proactive.

We were using HPE 3PAR, which we liked, but this is much more cost-effective.

We own five Pure arrays. The salesperson came in and set it up for us every time. Note that it was the salesperson who was able to set them up for us.

I would definitely recommend this product to a colleague.

It's a high performance storage array. We want some deals regarding replication and stretch cluster. 

In our case, we are not using it for us. So, it helps us to go to customers and provide the full stack solution. So, we provide storage from Pure Storage.

It's very fast, easy to use, and the cloud-based management is good.

The simplicity of it. The performance is good, but the simplicity is the best thing. Storage management is quite complex, but Pure Storage is easy to manage.

I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good.

It is quite difficult to read documentation and get documentation. To get some things on the web, it is really easy. However, I would to have some in-depth information about how the product is working.

From an API point of view, it's quite a complex product.

We have it in our labs, so it's not in a production environment.

Scalability is okay. We can scale it quite high if we want. This is what we have seen on some projects, which is good,

To set it up is quite easy. When you know how it works, it's really easy. You can set it yourself without any problems. Plug it in, the software updates, and that's it.

We had a guy from Pure Storage helping us and sharing skill sets. This way, they could know our stuff and we could know their stuff.

Test it, get familiar with it, then decide whether to purchase it.

I don't have any experience with predictive performance analytics yet.

We use it for performance, the capacity of deduplication, and compression of the data.

We are a small cloud service provider. When we put Pure Storage working on the services of our customers, most of the problems that we had in the past with the performance in IOPS have disappeared. It has been a great improvement for our customers' services.

The storage is very simple. 

We can use more capacity because of the compression and deduplication.

The predictive performance analytics are good, easy to use, and simple to see. They are simple to understand, not complicated.

Going forward, don't complicate things for the customers. 

The solution is very stable.

Only one disk has a problem. The performance with that problem doesn't create problems for our customers. We are able to maintain the performance of the program.

We have already made upgrades now for two months. We think that the scalability is very good. If you want to go to another array or add more capacity, they will change it, if you have the support. So, we put more capacity on it. There is a simple way to do it which has a protection of investment.

We have only used the remote technical support in the case of the disk. They are very good. They acknowledged the problem quickly, identified it, and are always asking and seeing things, which in some cases, are more difficult for us to see.

Because of our clients, we needed a more structured solution with performance which was stable. So, we tested new storage, and Pure Storage was the one that revealed to be more flexible and simpler. 

The initial setup was very simple and straightforward.

For the integration, we used a reseller. It was so easy to put in place and put it to work. They did a good job, but I think we could also do it.

For us, as the customer, it reduced the price of the management. The total cost of ownership has been reduced. In the beginning, the investment was greater. Now, it is about a 20% reduction.

Using older techniques, we see that we can offer clients more capacity. The real capacity that we get to customers is six or seven times greater than the capacity that we have in place.

In the beginning, we saw that the price is not very good. When we made some compilations about the deduplication and the compression and what the equipment does, including the differentiation of upper management of the storage, the price was not so bad. However, in the beginning, the price was very difficult to justify.

It is a very good solution. It responds to all the workload problems that we have. It could be with some different workloads that the solution might not respond the way that it responds to us. Test it. People will be astonished with it performance and simplicity.

We have two arrays in two data centers. Normally, in the arrays, the latency is about 4.3 milliseconds per second, which is very good in all workloads. In terms of reduction, our customers are seeing about a seven to eight plus reduction in the capacity that they have.

The TCO for flash and SSD implementation are comparable.

We are using Pure Storage as an all-flash product. It is a niche product, and only used for high performance data.

With Dell EMC, they have all-flash arrays, but they also have other types of storage. Our client use the solution for DevOps and their high speed databases. 

It reduces space and the the polar consumption. It also accelerates the applications.

The VME feature is interesting. Additionally, I like the way they went to market with their All Green Program.

The connectivity needs improvement. You do not have the possibility to have a file and block connectivity at the same time on the same machine. It has limited ability to do so.

The scalability is good. 

I have 19 years experience with Dell EMC products, and almost two years of experience with Pure Storage. The main difference between Dell EMC All Flash and Pure Storage FlashArray is that the Dell EMC product is building on a traditional architecture. You have more functionalities and more connecting possibilities with Dell EMC at this moment. Of course, Pure Storage FlashArray is on a quick road to closing the gap.

It is easy to install. It took us only a half an hour to deploy. If you have a complex environment with a lot of servers, it may take a bit more. I would say the average setup time is one to two hours. 

It is key for a customer to consider the ROI of the product. One has to consider the price, and the architecture of the product. 

The pricing of Pure Storage is all-inclusive. It is very fair, and very easy. In comparison, Dell EMC has licensing that needs to be added if you wan to work in a complex environment or in specific functionalities. 

When comparing Pure Storage and Dell EMC, I think that Dell EMC has to improve its real performance. Also, Pure Storage is a lot easier to install than the Dell EMC product.