What advice do you have for others considering Pure FlashArray X NVMe?

Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe as a nine out of ten.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe an eight out of ten.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten. Pure might be better than other products could be. But in some projects, IBM is better for the customer. However, I must understand what the customer needs. I am not saying that Pure is the best, but In some projects, I prefer to go with Dell, HP, or IBM. I need to understand the customer needs and budget before comparing them. Pure has better technology right now, but if the customer has a small budget and if we are just talking about the use space or the net space, Pure doesn't work.

I would recommend Pure FlashArray X for its reliability and simplicity, especially for larger solutions. In comparison to Dell, we prefer Pure for its user-friendliness. Overall, I would rate the product as a seven out of ten.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe is the best solution for small-scale projects. However, if you want to use it for a high-end project, you must scale it properly. You will face latency and performance issues if you don't scale the solution properly. Overall, I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a seven out of ten.

We have a dedicated support team for maintenance available 24/7 across all of our data centers. A small group of individuals is in charge of overseeing the platform, and we also have a standard support team in place. I highly suggest obtaining the implementation certification for Pure FlashArray X NVMe. It is necessary for deployment and can be a bit frustrating as it requires paying for professional services unless you have the certification. With the certification, you are able to deploy on your own. The process is straightforward and uncomplicated, but you don't have access to all the required information to do the initial setup without the certification. Obtaining the certification is a good idea. There's training material that's available and it's a normal certification test. That cost approximately $150. I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten. They could make it easier to receive information about the solution and the support has been a mix of good and poor experiences.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. We're a partner and end-user. We deal with Pure quite often.

I would absolutely recommend Pure FlashArray X NVMe to anyone and rate it an eight out of ten.

We're customers and end-users. We really like the product and their other tools are all great. I would advise new users to look into it for your higher-end Oracle and SQL needs. It does really well with the database products and with low latency requirements with a lot of transactional data. I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. It handles all our needs. The only reason why it didn't get a ten is the fact that the tracking of high CPU and garbage collection is still needed. That's kind of important to us.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It is hard for anyone to get a 10.

We are currently a customer. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. I would definitely recommend it. If a company is looking for an All-Flash Tier and they need extreme performance for individual workloads, Pure's the way to go, over something like a SolidFire.

We are partners. While I would recommend the product to others, I would also advise that they try it out first via a proof of concept if they are not so sure about the solution. It's free and they can experiment with all the features in their own environments. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We are very happy with the product overall.

This is a solution that I would recommend. I would rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe an eight out of ten.

I would absolutely recommend using it. I would also suggest negotiating and testing it. I bought a very small system of 10 terabytes that I put in one of our labs for testing so that my team can learn it, and I could play with it. We tested it, and after we were comfortable with the capabilities of the system and building things in VMware, which is a really critical part of the whole integration, we tested three different solutions from HP, Dell, etc. After the testing, it was clear to us that the Pure FlashArray X NVMe was the easiest to manage and configure and had the best performance that we had seen in all the arrays. We are not testers, but we could tell. We could see the speed at which the databases came up and everything else. After testing, you will be convinced that Pure FlashArray X NVMe is probably the best box or right there in terms of performance. We tested in early 2019. There might be another solution that is doing better today. I would rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten. The only reason I won't give it a ten is the price. Its feature set is pretty complete. I'm pushing it right now. It is like you buy a sports car and then you complain that you don't have a big trunk to put a lot of luggage. You are complaining about the wrong thing here. You bought the thing because it is fast. Similarly, we bought it because it is fast. From that perspective, whether they can address NAS or other things like that is just icing on the cake for me. Its price is a little high right now. Otherwise, I would have given it a ten.

This is a good solution and one that I recommend. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I would definitely recommend Pure FlashArray. I would rate the product at ten out of 10.

My advice for anybody who is researching this or a similar solution is to give it a shot. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

VMware benefits our IT organization because of its ease of deployment and manageability. We are using VMware on Pure, and we have implemented this because of the speed. VMware is faster, so it helps when you log in. We use vCenter integration. It helps because you can see the storage added, and manage it from vCenter with a single console. The cost for Pure may be high, but the reliability and scalability make it well worth the money. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The advice I would give to someone considering this solution is, don't wait. Go for it. I would rate it a seven out of ten. There is room for improvement.

Try to get as many discounts as you can if you go with Pure. If you don't need performance-oriented space or storage, Cohesity is very well priced and scalable. If you just need file server storage, you might not want to go with Pure. You might want to go with something a lot cheaper or more cost-effective like Cohesity. The Systems Engineer that we worked with was a huge help, too. I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten. It's very functional and very cutting edge. Technology just costs a lot.

On a scale of one to 10 Pure Storage has rightfully earned a 10 rating. We are very proud to be a customer and I hope the developers will continue to innovate and keep up the good work.

We run VMware on Pure, mainly because of the speed and the ease of use of the Pure storage interface. The joint solution has helped because we can do the same thing with a lot less tech. We use the vSphere plug-in for Pure. It helps because we don't have to learn the CLI for Pure. It allows my medium-level tech staff to do stuff that they normally would be a little nervous about doing on their own. We are big fans of this product, and for anybody considering this solution, I strongly encourage them to use it. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It depends through which lens you're looking at it. If you're looking at it from a database perspective, you obviously want to make sure that you can scale your workloads without a degradation in performance, your latency times. What we've seen on the Xs, and the Pures in general, is that we can scale way beyond what we need to without any degradation in performance. We don't need to sacrifice any of the performance as we scale up or scale to the side. There aren't many vendors that we looked at that can scale to the size of the operations that we needed, from an I/O-testing perspective. In real, day-to-day, we don't run that hard. But if we need it, we can. It's there. In terms of the Predictive Performance Analytics, I haven't seen it myself. I know that the guys have just recently started looking at a lot of analytics, but I haven't seen it myself. Although I don't admin the solution, I would give it a ten out of ten. It's been awesome to work with. It's simple, it's very reliable, it's very quick. And we get excellent dedupe ratios on the machine without a sacrifice in performance.

To say, "Pure Storage has simplified storage," is a bit of an understatement. The array has gone from having a PhD in working with it to effectively having a high school diploma. Anyone who understands anything about IT can run a Pure Storage array. It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems. With the traditional Pure Storage array, you had very consistent low latency, but you still were in one to three milliseconds. Now, with the all NVMe arrays, it's a whole new paradigm of fast. You're actually measuring everything in less than a millisecond. So, with the I/O responses, your high bar is one millisecond. This is something you haven't seen in most traditional storage frames or even all-flash storage frames. We generally always advise people to make the choice to go with Pure Storage because they won't regret it. We can evidence that a lot through our experiences of running massive databases and systems on Pure Storage today and prior experiences that we've had with it.