Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

We are a reseller of Pure Storage FlashArray. Our customers use it for virtualization, artificial intelligence, and machine learning.

It has helped to simplify storage because it has a very easy graphical user interface.

Our clients see a reduction in total cost of ownership by around 40%. We have also found that the total cost of ownership of flash is lower than SSD implementations. I track a whole bunch of business markers on the cost of components. I do a lot of cost analysis for customers and I get pricing from all the component manufacturers; Ingram Micro, Toshiba, Seagate and then I compare the pricing. I do that almost every week. I constantly see that it's cheaper than SSD implementations.

The security operating system is its most valuable feature because it's very simple, easy to use, and operate. You don't have to do very serious training to operate this equipment. It's user-friendly and pretty straightforward.

The performance analytics are moderate. It's not the best performance platform out there but it's the easiest to operate.

They need to find another way of doing data protection, RAID is not working very well. It takes performance away from the SSD.

I would like to have multi-cloud integration.

Latency needs a bit of work. It's pretty good but it needs to get below 300 microseconds. Then the data reduction would be excellent. On average I see twelve to one data reduction.

It's very stable.

It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that. 

I've used their technical support and would say that it's excellent. I would give them a ten out of ten. 

My clients know it's time to switch solutions because I run a proof of concepts where I test the manufacturer's equipment. If I find something that is a big difference then I let them know about it. Cost, performance, tools, and ease of use are all factors that we take into consideration when choosing to switch. We also chose this solution because of the Evergreen upgrade and the ease of use.

I also install Pure Storage for my clients. The initial setup is very straightforward and very simple. It takes me an hour to set one up.

My client's return on investment with Pure Storage is in about 7.3 months.

We also looked at Nimble, which is now owned by HPE, and E8, Dell EMC, and NetApp platform.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. Not a ten because nobody's a ten. We haven't achieved perfection yet.

I would advise someone considering this or a similar solution to push Pure Storage for multi-cloud integration.

SAN solution for Tier 1 storage for VMware, Exchange, SQL, and physical servers; trying to fit as much production load as possible on them.

The speed to deploy or move VMs is ridiculous. By migrating our important systems to the Pure arrays, we have removed any storage issues and questions when there is a problem of "is it the storage?"

The deduplication and compression rates are beyond impressive. The amount of data that I have moved to it from legacy storage has enabled us to retire units that are three or four times the physical size.

• Ease of setup
• Migration to it
• Upgrading
• Support responsiveness
• Kick-butt mobile app
• On box analytics and vCenter plug-in
• The ease of creating a snapshot for testing or recovery.

I cannot stress enough the stability, speed, and awesome deduplication and compression rates. The amount of data we have moved to it has allowed us to remove units four times the size. The mobile app is kick-butt and support has been topnotch.

Mainly, just some nit picky stuff, like allowing servers and volumes to be grouped. Therefore, it would easier to work with them in the GUI.

None.

No issues.

It has been great; easy to work with to resolve cases or perform upgrades.

Yes, plainly put, it sucked and we wanted to get to a solution that was fast, easy to maintain, and reliable.

We had issues with it not handling the load and could never trust that it was serving data fast enough to not be causing issues.

Easy as pie.

In-house.

• Speed
• Time saved in management
• Availability
• No fingers pointing at storage as an issue.

It is a more expensive solution, but it is worth it. You are getting what you paid for. I never have to worry about its performance or if it is the root cause of an issue.

We looked at Nimble and EMC.

I never have to worry about its performance impacting the firm. It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be.

I had high expectations and they have met or exceeded each one of them. It was an exciting day when I finally got them up and running.

We have a contract with Pure Storage, and we use it for VMware and database server storage provisioning.

We have multiple applications in the environment, and we are provisioning from Pure Storage.

The single pane of glass is important for us because we can view all the array details in one place. We can see the details about the capacity, utilized space, available or free space, alerts, and performance in one place. This overview is important.

It did decrease the storage footprint compared to other models and storage, but I do not have the metrics.

It helps to reduce the downtime.

We are not using any replication features. We only have storage provisioning, so the provisioning feature is good. The compression and deduplication are good.

It does not require much improvement. They can maybe improve the file services. The focus is on block storage. They can also include file services such as NAS shares and CIFS shares. There should be provisioning of the file shares from a unified array.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for one year.

There is no lagging or crashing. It is quite stable.

It is good in terms of scalability. We can scale up to a higher number.

I have interacted with their technical support. They were good at providing support when I requested.

Positive

We have different flash array systems from HPE GreenLake. Pure Storage is better than the HPE GreenLake flash array. Performance-wise, Pure Storage is better. The cost of Pure Storage might be high, but I am not sure.

It is on-prem. I do not know about its initial deployment because I was not there at the time of deployment. So, I do not know if its benefits could be realized immediately after the deployment. However, it has been effective in terms of utilization and capacity. We are now planning for different storage and doing the migration from Pure Storage to others because of the EOC limit that we have.

In terms of maintenance, there are firmware updates. We have to schedule a change window and then update the firmware.

It is good. Working with it is easy. Provisioning is smooth and good. The GUI and everything else is good. You can just do training with Pure Storage and get on with your storage tasks.

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

It's a very simple tool to use with extremely low latency and high performance.

Pure Storage FlashArray has improved the performance of applications.

Feature-wise, the solution provides direct flash storage.

Improvement-wise, Pure Storage FlashArray must support real-time incidents. I think that Pure Storage should improve its pricing.

Currently, the solution fails to support file screening. I want to see the solution supporting file screening in the future.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for four years.

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

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. Presently, five people in my company use the tool.

I rate the solution's technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

My company saw a return on investment using the solution as it helped us reduce the time it took to access applications and reduced the space required in our data center.

Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

When considering the use of this solution, I suggest evaluating the price and taking into account its performance and potential to reduce the space in the data center. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

At the moment, we're migrating our complete infrastructure onto Pure Storage. All of our storage is going onto it.

We are using its latest version.

I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is.

Its price could be cheaper. It is not the cheapest one out there, but I'm not directly involved in the figures and negotiations. 

In terms of features, we are really happy with it. We haven't had it long enough to give feedback on that.

I have been using this solution for a year now.

So far, it has been brilliant. We haven't really had it long enough to judge it.

It seems pretty good, but we haven't really tested it.

We have about a hundred users. We will possibly increase its usage. It will be done slowly.

It has been really easy to use. Their support has been very helpful.

We were using another solution. We switched because it was very old, and we were looking at something that was an SSD. 

I was not involved in the initial setup. For its deployment, we had a couple of engineers.

It is not the cheapest one out there. We're paying yearly, but I'm not 100% sure.

We evaluated Pure and NetApp, and we eventually went with Pure. A positive point with NetApp was the price.

If it's financially viable for you and you can afford it, it's worth it.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We use the private on-premise deployment model. Our primary use case of this solution is for virtual machines. We just use it as storage for our vCenter environment.

It has improved my organization in the way that we have high reliability and faster access to our data.

It has improved our IT organization in the way that we are able to provide systems to our customers quickly and provide high availability and reliability for their applications. 

We are running VMware on Pure. Our main driver was speed. The joint solution has helped our organization through speed of delivery and speed of applications.

The top-tier support and reliable storage are the most valuable features of this solution. 

In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption.

It's highly stable. It's one of our biggest successes. 

It's been really easy to expand storage with no downtime. It's one of the things we like about it. 

Their technical support is great. 

We knew we needed to switch to this solution because the industry is going away from spinning disks. We were on spinning disks, and the whole industry is going away from that. 

We are still using IBM but we are not happy with it. IBM has taken old technology and tried to make it new. Pure has started from the ground up and built it.

The integration was straightforward. 

Pure Storage did the integration for us. 

Our costs are around $100,000.

We also evaluated Nimble, EMC, and HPE 3PAR. We ended up going with Pure because of the architecture, speed, and support.

I would rate it a ten out of ten for its reliability, speed, and support. The support is awesome.

Our customers primarily use Pure Storage for virtualization, whether it is VMware or Hyper-V. They choose Pure Storage for its high-performance, low-latency, and reliable all-flash arrays, which are essential for efficiently running virtualized workloads, including critical applications, databases, and virtual machines.

I find two features of Pure Storage most valuable. The first is the "safe mode" function, and the second is its simplicity. I value its simplicity and artificial intelligence monitoring. It also integrates seamlessly with major platforms like VMware, Microsoft Hyper-V, and Microsoft SQL, while offering tight integration with backup software for faster restores. This connectivity promotes cyber resilience and can be leveraged for disaster recovery solutions.

I don't see any major issues with Pure Storage, but one thing to note is that Pure Storage can be seen as a premium product, and other vendors are catching up in terms of performance and features. However, overall, the feature set and performance are excellent.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for two and a half years.

It is highly stable, especially if you follow recommended patching and software upgrades. Pure Storage offers an officially published uptime guarantee, ensuring device stability, which is legally binding.

Pure Storage is very scalable. Even the smallest model can be successfully upgraded all the way to the largest model, which is a feature I haven't seen with other solutions.

Pure Storage's tech support is excellent. They use AI effectively, and their support team is highly reliable and responsive. Our customers have experienced no issues with their support.

Setting up Pure Storage is incredibly easy. You just plug it in, connect it to the network, and start building your storage – it is that simple. Deployment takes less than a day. Deployment is straightforward and typically manageable by a single person or resource. However, when lifting heavier equipment, like the larger Pure Storage units, it is recommended to have two people, but the rest of the setup can be accomplished via servers. Maintenance is straightforward. Once it is connected to the internet and secure communication is enabled, it sends monitoring data to Kubernetes and artificial intelligence in the cloud, providing early warnings of potential issues. This cloud-based AI can often assess the health of your device better than you can.

Our customers see a return on investment and value for their money with Pure Storage. They measure it through methods like net present value and comparisons to the weighted accumulated cost of capital, which provide a robust financial assessment.

It has a flexible, pay-as-you-go option.The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations, but this is the only major downside.

My advice for new users is to not be afraid to start using it from day one, but take the time to educate yourself on all the valuable features available to make the most of it. Since it is a significant investment, ensure you manage and protect the asset effectively. Overall, I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray as a ten out of ten.

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.