We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashArray and Reduxio [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"It's helped us because we've changed fundamentally what we talk about. We don't talk about storage and different tiers of storage anymore nor do we talk about servers. We talk now about applications and how applications impact the business and end users."
"The latency is good."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"At this point, I don't know anything that they could provide in a better way."
"One of the features that my customers are really interested in is immutable snapshots. There are immutable snapshots to which your applications can be reverted back if you are hit by some kind of ransomware threat or malicious attack. That's kind of a key deal, and it is one of the selling points I use to point out to my customers the value and the features that Pure Storage brings to the table."
"It comes with a large number of features out-of-the-box, which makes it easy for us to see problems and manage capacity."
"We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use."
"I never have to worry about its performance or if it is the root cause of an issue."
"They are quite responsive and our local team was pretty good."
"We've had different types of storage, and three things of this solution are valuable. The first one is its outstanding performance. The second one is its stability. In the about three years that we've had it, we've had component failures, but we never had a service interruption or any data loss. The third one, which is really critical, is that it is super easy to use in terms of provisioning, storage, and managing the arrays. I'm able to maintain a multi-site environment with a couple of dozen arrays with a single mid-level storage admin."
"I like the performance. I think it's what you call a hybrid SAN. It has solid state drives and, of course, regular optical drives, which would make performance a lot better, faster."
"The machine installed without difficulty."
"It needs integration with cloud vendors for remote storage, and to be able to restore a single machine from a specific volume."
"Instant recovery through its continuous data protection."
"Reduxio allows you just spin a dial and go back to just about any time… in most cases (depending on the policies you’ve set) to go back within one second granularity for a couple weeks in the past."
"We are able to recover to the second, if needed, our data. This greatly improves restore capability, for example, if there is a cryptolocker outbreak or data loss."
"Reduxio offers a very simple, elegant user interface (design) to manage it."
"The unit has been running at 100% without an issue."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"If we suddenly dump large amounts of data onto the storage system, it takes a while to process it."
"I would like the ability to swap out the network adapters into it. So, without taking out the whole controller, I would like to be able to swap adapters. This would make things easier."
"We would like to integrate it more with our backup solutions."
"Its price needs improvement. Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution."
"I would love to see a true one click upgrade solution. Right now, you have to click and schedule an appointment with Pure Storage to be able to upgrade. I would love for it to automatically download, install, and fall-over every controller as it updates."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"It's too early to tell if we've seen a reduction in total cost of ownership. The solution is expensive."
"We would like more extended historical data to help with some of the capacity planning. This is something that we are asking for all the time. E.g., what was the historical performance of this particular volume? So, we would like more historicals."
"The only critique that we have is it needs the ability to have local users added. You have to log in as one built-in admin account. You can't create your own."
"A centralized management would be nice, the ability to manage all cluster in one management portal."
"I would love to see deeper integration with VMware vSphere/vCenter. Right now, I can edit existing Reduxio datastore sizes in the vSphere web client. Provisioning new datastores that way would be nice."
"If Reduxio could manage multiple Reduxio systems within the same dashboard, or manage them as a single mode, it be very, very helpful for us."
"It would be helpful to have the ability to recover virtual machines individually without having to restore the full LUN."
"Needs to be made easier to use with slightly older versions of VMware."
"There is only thing I can think of at the moment, that would be detailed printable reports."
"the only thing I would say negative about Reduxio is the cabling was a little bit confusing at first, but now that we understand it, it's easy. It was just so different from what we've seen before. That was the only hard part to get used to. The storage array is fully redundant, so there are some cross-connect cables that you have to run, from the A side to the B side, and the B side back to the A side, and we've just never seen anything like that before. But now that I understand the design, it makes complete sense. But initially it was confusing."
Earn 20 points
Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews while Reduxio [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage. Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2, while Reduxio [EOL] is rated 9.8. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Reduxio [EOL] writes "Its access speed and now its recently released features makes Reduxio not only an equal, but also better than your older version SANs". Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and VMware vSAN, whereas Reduxio [EOL] is most compared with .
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
