FlashBlade could improve its certificate management. I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads.

The features provided for SMB customers are limited. India has more SMB customers. We need more improvements in the SMB features.

File storage needs a lot of improvement. Mainframe connectivity also needs improvement because it requires additional components to be integrated with Pure Storage FlashBlade.

If you want to keep your backup data, then this becomes an even more expensive solution because Pure Storage FlashBlade will not be able to meet your backup needs.

In the next release, I would like to see the inclusion of cyber resiliency.

In our case, we are mostly performance-focused. We don't require a laundry list of features. It's sort of a double-edged sword, however. On one hand, the lack of all these features makes it a lot easier to configure and manage. Yet, if you need those features, it might be a negative. For us, it's elegant. 

The solution is expensive. 

It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that.

Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes.

That means there are some features that just arent yet available on the product. When we ask for customization or certain features, we'll get a response saying "it's not available yet" or "that's in the pipeline". We have a complicated enterprise, therefore we need more features, perhaps, than the average user, and in this sense this product is limited.

We're on a dark site. We don't have internet access. This isn't great for FlashBlade, which needs to be connected to the internet. It's a website, so it needs to be connected in order to provide reports. Therefore, reporting isn't available to us.

We'd love a better dashboard that offers more accurate metrics. We'd like more details about what is happening on the system, so we can notify the clients as necessary.

I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabyte.

An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced.

The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems.

It would be nice if you could store file-based in the same box with the same technology.

Now you can only put block storage on the storage array. 

It would be nice if you had the same features in the file-based solution on the same box. This would mean you can have all of the storage types in your enterprise on the same box.

The solution needs better SMB support. For SMB 3.0 for example, I would expand their footprint to sell FlashBlade, etc.

Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration. 

The integration with S3 needs some improvement.

There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket.

What FlashBlade can do with S3 buckets needs to be improved. Other things, such as NFS, are simple to implement, but S3 can benefit from improvements.

It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release.

I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now. They have compression. They also don't have the duplication. They have only compression and it's not very good. 

I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution.

They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution. 

We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution.

At the moment, I can't think of anything that needs to be improved; however, the feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services. I know Pure has a company that's working on the cell system, but it's still not completely there yet.

I would like to see better integration. 

The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us.

On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge.

We are looking at Pure Storage's capabilities to move off-premise into the cloud.

In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready. 

We can add a bunch of compute, we could forever compute, but the array at some point comes to a screeching halt. I think if there's a way to make the flash array go wider that would be the better way to go in the long run.

I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution. 

There could be improvements in public cloud integration.

In the future, one innovation could be for them to make an embedded backup system.

It's difficult to find something that could be improved. The new version of the Purity operational system will be released this week and we've been told a lot of improvements have been made so we'll have to wait a few days and see what they're talking about.

The support needs improvement.

I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features.

The speed could be improved.

I would like to see more deduplication. 

Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups.