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 standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The latency is good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"FlashArray has some fresh efficiency features. I've never seen a storage solution with a compression rating this high before. It's at least 4-to-1 on Oracle databases. It's the best flash storage for Oracle."
"Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"The scalability is good."
"We consume less physical storage because of the solution’s deduplication and compression."
"It has good stability for our company."
"The deduplication and compression meet all of our system requirements."
"The GUI is very easy to use and intuitive."
"It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be."
"The stability of Pure Storage is very very good."
"The most valuable feature of the Pure Storage Flash Array is the blazing fast monitoring."
"The support has been so responsive and great, they feel like one of our staff members."
"The down-to-the-second restore capability, native to the device is a valuable feature."
"I like the Reduxio TimeOS, specifically. That feature's pretty good. I haven't seen it in any other product. They're the only ones who have it."
"The Reduxio box has improved our resiliency and management overhead."
"In terms of deployment and also data storage, the deduplication ability of it has reduced that footprint."
"The machine installed without difficulty."
"It has a very intuitive interface, it integrates more smoothly with our steps. With a different product from a different manufacturer, there are a lot more steps required to set up a volume, to make it available in VMware and to utilize it there."
"Reduxio provides a means of backing up the data that you store in it down to one second granularity."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"We need better data deduplication."
"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."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"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."
"I’d love to view the average, minimum and maximum performance in the reports (Analysis tab - Performance) but it is only graphics and you need to export data in CSV to find this information."
"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."
"I would rate this solution an eight because we have had outages. The commit times went very high in the database. The whole array went down so our customers were down for around eight hours. This was a very big outage which could have been our fault because we didn't do the upgrade in time."
"We understand that they're thinking about it, but one of the things that would be nice is if they added some basic file-level capabilities to the platform. The idea is that they would run a basic NFS or CIF share from the controllers. FlashBlade is the powerhouse for File and Object storage, but if you don't need all that power, a lightweight file function would make FlashArrays more versatile."
"The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could be better."
"I would love for them to have a hyper-converged solution."
"The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it."
"It is not possible to create a cluster on top of multiple arrays."
"Maybe it should come in stainless steel, just like its DeLorean time machine predecessor."
"We had a single failure of the device but believe that it was tied to the server losing contact with our NTP server due to DNS issues. As Reduxio is very time-dependent, losing sync made the entire array unstable."
"It would be helpful to have the ability to recover virtual machines individually without having to restore the full LUN."
"The ability to look at data at a file level would be useful, as well as the ability recover at that level. Right now, you can only recover whole volumes."
"Would love to have role-based access and an active directory integration."
"Scalability is a little unusual. We came from the NetApp world where, if you needed more disk space, you just added more drives into the chassis, whereas with Reduxio, if you need more disk space, you have to buy a new chassis."
"We had a brief hiccup, a brief outage, during one upgrade process, but it wasn't too extreme."
"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.