What advice do you have for others considering Pure Storage FlashArray?

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

Pure Storage FlashArray is a solution that can be described as a product that functions amazingly fast in terms of speed once it is up and running. In our company, we only semi-manage the product. Three people who look after server infrastructure, networking infrastructure, and virtual infrastructure in my company look after the product's maintenance. I rate the overall product an eight to nine out of ten. I wish the product wasn't cumbersome to do certain things and should provide a little more flexibility.

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.

It is an old storage we use for testing, and our production storage is IBM. It will be five years old since we are using the solution. We are also planning to buy a new storage solution. So, we are looking out into the market to see what we can buy. I recommend the solution to those planning to use it since I trust it is a great storage solution. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

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.

We are using an older version of the solution, not necessarily the latest. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I would recommend the solution for its capabilities, however, the price is too high.

We are using an all-flash X-series deployment. I'd advise people to test it and give it a try. They need to pay attention to their data reduction rate while doing so. I'd rate it nine out of ten overall.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by improving upgrade prices.

My advice to others is they should try the solution, it works well. I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10.

I'm a customer. We use the Pure Array X model with a version of Purity 5. Recently, we bought the Pure C series. We use it with a private cloud and on-premises as well. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

My advice to others is to evaluate the Pure Storage Flash Array. Do a proof of concept if you can it is a fantastic solution. I rate Pure Storage Flash Array a ten out of ten.

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

I would advise others to have a go at it because it has worked fine for us. I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is very simple to use. Many people are looking for a solution from an engineering perspective, they want something very easy to use and that everybody can use it. They want a solution that does not require an expert engineer to operate it. A normal engineer can manage and handle it with ease. Reporting is very good in the storage it gives you an overview of everything, and it is very easy to provision, deprovision, especially when you have a cloud environment. It is easy to provision and deprovision when you have customers. I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We are a user and a customer. While right now we are using an on-premises deployment, we likely will move to the cloud. I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

It is a very good product. I rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that I can recommend Pure. We were the first customer for Pure Storage in the UAE. It's stable, reliable, and you can trust it. The biggest lesson that I have learned from using Pure FlashArray is that it's user-friendly, easy to manage, and very flexible. You can scale out and it's easy to upgrade. The upgrade process is not complex and it can be done on the fly, without any disruption. My main complaint is that the garbage collection mechanism draws heavily on the resources. They have integration with VMware tools, although they can improve it slightly, and I would also like to see some improvements in the reporting. We have been using it heavily and all of our people are happy with it. This includes the DBA team. Whenever we have a requirement of it, it's very easy and it can be done within seconds. With our previous storage solutions, we had to spend more time looking into problems and they were not user-friendly. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I would rate this solution as ten out of ten.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray eight out of 10.

Overall, this is a good product and I would recommend it. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

I would recommend that you do a PoC to ensure that it works according to the needs of the company, and that will help prevent a lot of headaches. I think it's a very complete solution at this point, and I would rate it at ten on a scale from one to ten.

The solution is definitely storage-centric and this it accomplishes very well. I use the solution in my own company. The solution is both cloud- and on-premises based. While I don't actually use the solution myself, as I provide services for and commission it for the customer, I have probably done this 50 times over so far. I definitely recommend the solution. It's very good. It does what it advertises and this very well. As Pure Storage FlashArray is purpose-built, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

We're a customer and an end-user. We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I would recommend the solution to other users and companies.

I think with other products, there are issues with support systems and warranty features. Even the maintenance cost can be very high. In comparison to those products, Pure Storage FlashArray is very good. Overall, Pure Storage FlashArray has never let us down in front of customers so far, and I would rate this solution at eight on a scale from one to ten.

I trust them — their reputation is outstanding. Pure Storage is an amazing solution. I would totally recommend this technology. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Pure Storage a rating of ten. If you're skeptical, there is a free demo that you can use to test it in your environment. Just give it a try, test out all the features, and experiment.

We did a POC before buying this solution. If you're interested in using this solution, I recommend that you do the same — see if you like it. It's a good product for block storage; It offers very good performance. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Pure Storage FlashArray a rating of nine.

We are just a customer and end-user. With Pure Storage, you have two versions. You have the Pure Storage version 50 and version 10. 50 is a little bit bigger than version 10. With FlashArray M50, it's an X50R2, it's full flash. We have the product currently on-premises, however, we would be more open maybe to Amazon or some other cloud. I would suggest new organizations go with the product, even though it is new. Some companies are scared of new products. It's more mature in the United States. However, it's working well for us here in Europe. Even if it costs a little bit more, you do get more for what you pay. We've chosen the most expensive option, however, we have no regrets in that sense. It's been worth it. Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's very easy to manage and works very well. The maintenance is also excellent. I'd recommend the solution. You don't have to do anything on the FlashArray. You don't have to deal with tier levels, or build and optimize something. Everything is done from the Pure Storage side. You're just using it, and that's it.

We recommend this solution to our friends and customers. It's perfect. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

I would recommend this solution. I am satisfied with this solution, and we plan to keep using this solution. I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We have hired Pure Storage and a distributor to help out at the beginning but mostly we deal with Pure Storage directly. I would rate Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

I would highly recommend this solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten. It has all the features we need. It tests all the software solutions that are currently available and that will be available in the future. You do not have to pay for any additional solutions that they purchase.

Who is good but cheaper than Pure? Is Pure worth the investment? 

Overall, this is a very good solution and my main complaint is about the price. Out of all of the arrays that I have worked with, Pure Storage is one of the better ones. I highly recommend both the solution and the company. My suggestion to anybody who is considering this product is to do the mathematics regarding the budget and the price really well because the rate can be expensive when it comes to upgrading in the future, either scaling it up or out. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

VMware benefits our IT organization because we are partners, so we deploy VMware services. It also helps our customers make their applications more readily available and reliable. We are using the VMware plug-in for Pure. It's meant more rapid provisioning of volumes for VMware, and it gives the customer more visibility of the storage. Both the ease of setup and the reliability of the array makes it quite simple to manage for the customer. My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider that things are changing a lot in the industry at the moment. So, obviously, looking for things that are going to take less time to manage, are easy to implement, and give a good return on investment are important success criteria. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. The storage has been very good. I don't know that it's a large enough deployment across the boards to know how it would fit in the rest of the enterprise.

We are using the on-premises deployment model. VMware was one of the primary drivers when choosing Pure. One of the banking vendors that we use as a primary banking system had limited vendors that they support for storage and Pure was one of them. It was also recommended by a different credit union, which is why we went with them. I would rate this solution eight or nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend them. They're recommended for a reason. They're not the cheapest, but the performance is, from what I read, the best, and it's easy to manage, so it's worth the extra cost.

We are now starting to look at some of the copy data management tools that come with the new array. This is now my go-to product, and I was an InfiniBand guy before. I like how there are database integrators on the Pure team that are actually there to help you tune your database workloads with their solution. I don't see that in a lot of other vendors. This is a good product and the overall day-to-day workflow within it is great, but some of the issues that we've had with migrations bump it down slightly. The product is good, but it could be better. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

After implementing this solution, we did see the performance impact. The performance had increased, although our customers did not see it. So as IT, on the backend, we could tell that something was happening but it didn't impact our customers. That is big for us because a lot of times, you have outages that IT recognizes that don't impact your customers. Those are the good outages. When you have an outage that impacts a customer then those are the bad days. VMware greatly benefits our IT organization. We are about ninety-five percent virtualized, and it's made it tremendously easy to support the number of servers that we have with the number of staff that we have. It increases the ability to provision and de-provision. The whole server lifecycle is much simpler than when things used to be hardware only. It allows us to leverage our spending better because we can use the whole platform. We have been running VMware for fifteen years, but the reason we have Pure there is so that we have a general workload platform there that can meet any and all needs for our customers. Only for very specific customers do we develop anything different. It gives us the power to run pretty much any workload besides maybe AMP-analytics or artificial intelligence, so it allows us to be very flexible. A lot of times, our customers don't know how to ask for the resources. They say "Just make it run". Our response is that we have a tool that is flexible and powerful enough to basically handle any request because our customers sometimes don't know how to size for their applications. Running VMware on Pure helps because it makes it easy for IT. The virtualization makes it easy for IT to withstand outages, to do refreshes, and to make changes. With Pure, the all-flash gives you the speed to endure bumps in performance and it shields you against performance slips on your network. In the past, with spinning disk technology, you would feel the pain. You customers would experience the pain. We help the customers by not spending so much time dealing with the hardware. It's like "said it and forget it". We set it up, it's running and now we try to spend more time working with our customers to understand what they want to do and less time on the back end just trying to make sure that everything works. I think we are using a plug-in with vCentre, which allows our system administrators to see into the storage. In the past, they would have to reach out to the storage team to try and understand if there are any performance problems. Now they can see that right away as they are troubleshooting, so instead of having to get two or three seniors together to troubleshoot, we can get one person in vCentre. They can do most of the high-level troubleshooting right away and only if it has developed into something they can't figure out, do they need to engage multiple people. This all allows us to respond quickly to the customer. My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider the impact on your employees. You want your employees to be successful so that your business can be successful. Don't look at just cost because any salesman can come in and make a proposal that looks appealing to you, whether it's over a one year period or three year period or otherwise. Especially when you deal with the very large vendors like Dell/EMC, who can bundle so many products together, it makes it easy for you. You have to also consider that this tool was so easy for us to implement that instead of spending three to six months fighting implementation, it was in so quickly that we were on to other efforts. There are a lot more soft costs that would have been there that we were able to avoid. To summarize, I would suggest that you think more than just about the money and the investment, but the service level. For us, we needed support at international locations, and we took all of that into account. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

They're the leader in the industry and everyone's chasing them. They're a cloud-native array that no one's ever done and their storage is excellent. Even if they weren't one of the fastest arrays in the entire industry, I would use them for their support model and ease of use. The advice I would give to someone considering this solution is to look past the sticker shock which is return on investment. I would look at data reduction. I would definitely buy into what people say about their support, which is excellent. I would say that your company, whether you realize it or not, is going to benefit from being industry-leading, pushing the edge from a technology perspective, the ease of management, administration, and even the setup. It is well worth it. I would rate it a nine and a half out of ten. I would rate it that high simply because I think if they can take advantage of QLC NAND and bring the costs down into a different market, it would be perfect. If they wanted to do a hyper-converged solution with this type of support that they have, they would be unbeatable. They're already unbeatable, but QLC NAND is going to bring the costs down for this all-flash architecture, and if you can cut the price of half of the flash array, you can be selling to small, medium business much quicker. It would be fantastic.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. It's simple. It's got great support and it's fast. It does what it's supposed to do. My advice to someone considering this solution would be to test it and build a proof of concept.

We ran into some issues with the program at first and we had to work around those issues to fix our problems. So at the end of the day, it wasn't really a smooth ride. It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure. That's why I would give it an eight or a nine out of ten. But definitely not a 10.

I am a firm believer that everything has room for improvement, so I rate this nine out of ten.

I rate this solution eight out of ten because I saw a lot of growth beyond the performance capabilities. I do, however, want to see improved costs, integration, and encryption. Those are the big ones. My advice to others would be to use your pre-sale targets as the layouts, as well as all your mitigated controls and requirements. Then forecast the capacity and performance metrics prior to your purchase.

I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To get to a perfect ten they should be more competitive in their pricing. It's expensive. It's premiere storage but there are other premiere providers out there as well that are beating them on price, at least in our case. The encryption is another area that needs improvement. It was huge. Right now we're at 82% on the Pure array. If they come up with that and pass to read through the more metric encryption, we would probably get 30 or 40% available disk space back, so it's huge.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's a solid product but all products can improve. It's technology, it's not always going to do what you need it to do. It can go down from time to time, but it's been pretty solid so far. I would advise someone considering this solution to talk to a Pure Storage engineer to see if it fits your needs.

It's a pretty simple and pretty straightforward solution. There's a lot of one pane of glass type of things that we have with Pure and I don't see much in terms of improvement. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. My advice to someone considering this solution is to just get it.

The team that worked with this program say it's a very good program, so I'd recommend it. My coworkers say it's very good, so I would give this a nine out of ten. For me, no product ever gets a ten, because nothing is perfect.

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

We are using the private cloud deployment model on the Azure platform. The solution benefits our IP presentation. We have a lot of cost savings. We do a lot of virtualization compared to buying physical hardware. That's a major chunk of cost-savings for the company. We are running VMware on Pure. It offers better performance. The utilization and the requirements from the users suggest that they want to move into Pure. I would definitely recommend that others go for this solution. They can start slow, but they can surely move forward. I would rate this solution seven out of ten. I would rate it higher if the solution could help us troubleshoot better and if the performance itself was even better. The users sometimes complain that it's still slow.

Depending on their EMR, Pure is certified to work with many vendors including EPIC and MEDITECH, and they're a fantastic partner. Even from pre-sale to post-sales, I'm always in contact with the folks at VMware and Pure. They address any issues, problems, or questions I have. Their ability to help is endless. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. When the file services are available on Pure, it will absolutely be a ten.

We are using the private cloud deployment model. We are running VM on Pure. The main driver around VM on Pure is the number of IOPS I was able to get out of the two controllers. That was the main reason I chose Pure. I'm not using any plugin with the vCenter or anything else like that. The advice I would give to others considering implementation is to do your investigation, do a POC, and try it out. Find out which fits your needs. Also, isolate your workload. Don't mix your workloads if you want to do a successful VDI deployment. I would give the solution nine out of ten.

Like I tell everybody else that I deal with, if you want to focus your time on doing more valuable things for your company, and you deal with storage on a day-to-day basis like I do, the best thing you can do is put Pure in your environment. It really is set-it-and-forget-it. I've come from the days of VMAXs where you're sitting there tweaking and turning knobs all the time to try to make sure that your storage environment is tip-top. With this, you literally plug it in, connect it and serve it, and then it does everything else itself. I get to focus my time on doing other things that are more valuable to the company. On a scale of one to ten, Pure is an 11.

I would like to see a reduction in the cost and speed, but I still think that this program deserves a ten out of ten rating. My advice to others would be, if you can afford it, get Pure.

Using VMware has improved our IT organization by providing a stable virtualization platform. We are running VMware on Pure, which was driven by our interest in consolidation. It has helped us by saving space over using less dense storage. We have the Pure plug-in for the VMware environment. It has helped us with information monitoring. For anybody comparing this solution to similar products, my advice is to look into the numbers. This product is definitely worth the price, and it is easy to use. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I would recommend to go with this solution. We have integrated the solution with VMware, and the process was seamless. We've never had any trouble with it. Flash drives make an amazing difference.

I have made recommendations to friends who work for other companies that are looking for storage right now to just go ahead and buy Pure Storage. From what I have seen, it will beat out any other storage solution. From the performance that I've seen, the simplicity of how to use it, the responsiveness, and customer experience, it is one of the best companies that I have worked with so far. I was actually branded as a SAN environment when we got Pure Storage. For me, it was learning that a SAN environment wasn't necessarily as complex as I thought it was. You have vendors out there, like Pure Storage, who makes things super simple and easy to use.

I would recommend buying it.

Ensure you are looking at all aspects of what the device can do, what your company needs are, and try to see how Pure Storage can meet all of your company's current needs. We have Pure Storage integrated with our vCenter. The integration was very simple and gives us a lot better insight into our virtual environment. Pure Storage hasn't increased nor decrease our ability to manage storage, because the solution that we are moving from had a very easy to use interface too. I don't really use the predictive performance analytics. Biggest lesson learned: Longevity planning. Pure Storage, with their five-year upgrade for controllers, has helped me feel comfortable. Even as the company grows, I will still have a storage solution which will fit the environment.

Look into Pure Storage because it seems to be a good solution.

I have integrated the solution with vCenter. There is nothing remarkable about it. It works. I have no complaints. I think all vendors have a pretty decent platform for inline deduplication and compression. There are always little differences here and there, but I haven't seen anything remarkable with Pure Storage.

I would recommend Pure Storage. We have already done the research. I could plan to do capacity on my Pure1 storage, and the deduplication works very well with it. For VMware, it has been a humongous savings. Once we get our file system onto it, we may see the dedupe work better, but we haven't got that far yet. We have integrated the solution with VMware, which is great. Our compression rates are 4:8:1. We are using it for VMware and our Oracle solution. It's a little higher on the Oracle solution. However, it has been great. For the IOPS, I don't think we ever really hit anywhere near what we thought we were going to hit. You always think you need more than you need. I have found the whole deduplication and compression process enlightening.

I would recommend trying it. We like the product, and it works well.

If you are researching Pure Storage, make sure you are getting the right amount of space set up for what you are doing because the compression will affect how much you are getting overall. You might think you are only getting ten terabytes or fifteen terabytes, but it will be a lot less. We use it for Hyper-V on my end and OpenStack on the production end. The integration for Hyper-V was very easy. There was pretty much no effort to do it. The UI is pretty good. I don't use it as often as I probably should, but it usually just runs on its own.

The features that we wanted have already been added. We integrated the product with VMware and vCenter. It was a very simple configuration to integrate the VMs and have them read our storage.

Do a fair evaluation. Be objective, look at the different technologies, and use the technologies. See what they look like and what you will to have to deal with when you're using the products. It's easy to make a decision based on bullet points, but it's hard to make a decision on actual use of the actual technology. We are a Chef shop, so we integrate it into Chef and VMware, vRA, and vRO. We also use all of the plug-ins. The integration is easy, simple, and seamless. For most of the workloads, the solution’s inline deduplication and compression has performed fine. We had a few workloads that were already precompressed, so when you put those workloads on top of a storage system that does compression and dedupe, they don't compress again. So, they tend to eat up a little storage. Therefore, we specifically targeted some third-party applications, like IDERA SQL Safe, and tried to remove them from the environment. This way Pure Storage could then compress and dedupe those SQL backup files. We are from Texas. Power is like ten cents a kilowatt. Texans apparently don't care that power is cheap. From a power requirement, it definitely has used less power, but we didn't use that as a metric to look at. Biggest lesson learned: Why didn't I switch sooner?

We have integrated the solution with VMware and vCenter. It went well. The solution’s inline deduplication and compression works fine. I don't have the need for the predictive performance analytics. The company seems to be engineering oriented, and I appreciate that.

The solution’s inline deduplication and compression work as advertised. I haven't had any issues with them. We have used the predictive performance analytics. It has worked for us. Biggest lesson learned: Having a strong support function is critical, especially when you're depending on it on an ongoing basis for maintenance and administration.

Just give it a try.

Get a PoC and see how it works out for you. See if you see an improvement with your apps and go from there. We really like it. It is really speedy.

I am pretty happy with the solution, as it is currently.

It's a simple, robust solution, which is very stable. Pure Storage is very good and quick for backing up SAP HANA.

I would recommend the product.

It has been quite satisfactory in performance and scalability. Since we adopted this only a year ago, we will see what happens in the long term, if they will keep up with their quality.

One of the "buyer beware" issues would be, if you're going to buy a $1.5 million installment of Aries, which is the NVIDIA, it's got a high cost. If you just need a cucumber cart to be pulled on wheels, you don't need to buy a jet plane, although the seller might say, "Hey, this is the best, greatest, and newest." These are some of the things that you'd want to be aware of as someone who is looking to get into AI. Make sure you need that much because you could probably build a scaled-down version at a significantly lower cost. I rate the solution a nine out of ten. Pure is a partner of ours that we use for a lot of our machine-learning deployments and some of our smart-data applications which we build in Canada. We pursue the same clients together for some of the government contracts, and we use the FlashBlade for some of the storage for our machine-learning algorithms, with the NVIDIA DGX. We're exclusive to Pure, versus the other hardware vendors who are in the same place for flash storage. This is who we use and who we decided to go with, due to some of the innovation that they have within their stack. In Canada, they've got a very good strategy where they're partnering with some of the good software vendors there, and they're making good relationships on the government side and with some of the VARs. They're doing a good job. Everything is kosher with the documentation. They've been fantastic, a good partner supporting our pursuits. They have even delivered some prototypes for us, before we started using them, to some of our vendors. That way, we could have a sandbox where we could use some of their storage to create demos and proofs of concept for some of our clients.

I would definitely recommend this product to a colleague.

I would definitely suggest this solution to a colleague because of the ease of use. Also, the controller upgrades, compared to Pure's competitors, are huge. We have about 1,000 users using the product in our company.

I recommend the solution to my colleagues.

I would absolutely recommend this product to a colleague. And I have done that already.

I would recommend it to colleagues. When performance is important, that's what Pure is all about. I rate the solution at ten out of ten. Solid-state storage makes a lot of sense, they're 100 percent solid-state when you need that kind of performance. The pricing is very attractive and it delivers performance for the money.

I would recommend this product to colleagues in the same field. It makes life easier for me. I rate the product at nine out of ten. We're very happy with it. We purchased the product for our Epic implementation. I had such minimal issues with it. Ten out of ten is a stretch, but it's pretty close. We're pretty happy.

I would absolutely recommend this product to a colleague. We have no regrets. We have one person who administers it. We have about 9,000 employees and the IT department has about 300.

The product is an easy ten out of ten. We've been very happy with it. We've found them to be a great value. Service and support is phenomenal. It's really hard to find reasonable things for them to actually improve it on.

I would definitely recommend this product to a colleague because of what it can do. I've already done that. I've already referenced several other nonprofits, human service organizations, and long-term care facilities. We've spoken highly of Pure. For an organization, it can take storage from 40 terabytes down to five terabytes. It's excellent. Our user base consists of 3,000 people but it takes just one person to manage it - ease of use.

I would definitely recommend it to colleagues. I have not only used it where I am currently at, but I have also used it at other locations before. I have recommended it to partners, and colleagues that I have worked with in the past, across the state of California.

I would absolutely suggest this solution to a colleague or a friend because of the performance and reliability of the product.

It is a very good solution. It responds to all the workload problems that we have. It could be with some different workloads that the solution might not respond the way that it responds to us. Test it. People will be astonished with it performance and simplicity. We have two arrays in two data centers. Normally, in the arrays, the latency is about 4.3 milliseconds per second, which is very good in all workloads. In terms of reduction, our customers are seeing about a seven to eight plus reduction in the capacity that they have. The TCO for flash and SSD implementation are comparable.

It is simple, powerful, and a beautiful solution. It is a nice piece of software, but it also has some nice hardware inside. The predictive performance analytics are quite good. We have touched a lot of cases where the performance was quite similar, even under big loads, but the compression and duplication numbers can be misleading. Because PDFs are more compressed, the dedupe and compression numbers are being lowered.

When our customers are deciding on a storage solution, we talk about their needs and what they need as an outcome for their business. We usually show them how easy Pure Storage works and how fast it. These are strong points for most customers. Try to get a demo, then test it.

If you have doubts, do a proof of concept. Pure Storage is very happy to provide you with storage ahead of time that you can test for a couple of months. This way, you can test the performance and bugs, which makes it easier to sell to your company. Everything is embedded that is something managed from end-to-end by Pure Storage. This is something really easy for us. We don't have to work with integration and the different subcomponent of the storage that we would have to use if it was SSD. We are at about 3.0 to 4.0 in terms of data reduction.

I would recommend Pure Storage, as it is well-established. It also simplifies and optimizes the right space. The predictive performance analytics are good.

Go for it. The product is great.

Test it, get familiar with it, then decide whether to purchase it. I don't have any experience with predictive performance analytics yet.

We are not using predictive performance analytics at the moment.

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.

Give it a try. Get a system in on a trial basis, make a deal, and try it to see if it's something you can use. I rate Pure Storage at ten out of ten. We're very satisfied with Pure Storage. They are a very good company, doing very good things.

You get what you pay for; it is expensive, but it works. Therefore, I would recommend using Pure Storage. I don't use the predictive performance analytics too much.

Pure Storage is now our de facto standard product to use. The analytics were gathered for this environment, and the environment is big. Production-wise, it is running Oracle, and performance-wise, it is running enterprise applications.

I would rate this solution a nine. If someone was considering this solution I'd definitely ask them what their use case for was. If they had a high workload, like for example, I have a buddy who works in the entertainment industry, and they need to edit 4K video, so they need something like Pure that's really fast. I love the support and I love just what Pure does in general, so I'd definitely suggest it.

Latency defines everything.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. If you're considering this solution I would advise you to do a Pure Storage demo and have them put an array in to try.

I would rate this solution a nine because I've worked with NetApp in the past, and other vendors as well in storage. I didn't find the content quite as intuitive as what I got in NetApp but in terms of hardware and all that, it's a 10. It's just that one little issue. I would advise someone considering Cloud flash storage that it's the way to go, with SQL. Definitely, Pure Storage is at the top of the game for that.

I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for the uses that we needed. If you're considering this solution, I would tell you to try it.

If you're looking into this solution I would tell you that it's a product that's good for almost every scenario. If you have enough money, get Pure Storage.

I would rate this solution a ten.

I would rate this solution an eight because it is very reliable in the way that it fulfills its key objective of being performance driven. If you're considering this or a similar product I would advise you to do a PoC to make sure that this solution actually fits into your environment. For us, we go through a cycle of about three months to do the evaluations across our different storage. One of the greatest challenges that our company had was that our company was not using Pure Storage and they were quite skeptical of the solution. With the results of the PoC, we proved to them that it is something that is going to be very useful for our business.

I would give Pure Storage a high recommendation. Go with Pure (or a flasher rate which is similar) because of the ease of management and performance. It makes life a lot easier, especially if you're a smaller shop it could be prohibitive to have a storage engineer on staff. So, get a systems engineer who can do storage. This is more common with Pure Storage, then with Dell EMC. I have not used the predictive performance analytics all that much. I really like the end-to-end VM monitoring. I will be putting that on pretty soon.

I find that the total cost of ownership to actually be lower than the fee implementation. We record and meter everything; electricity consumption and staff time spent looking after the arrays. Our figures put it somewhere between 40% and 50%, depending on how long we run the rates for. The data reduction rates vary for us. Anything from 6 to 1 down to 2 to 1, because it depends on our workload. Latency is always good and it's generally less than a millisecond across all the arrays we run.

I would rate this solution a ten because of the way the product works. It never blinks. Also because of the progressive support that we get from Pure Storage with updates and opening tickets on the device before we even knew that there was a problem happening. The entire experience of working with them has been great. I would advise somebody considering this solution to buy it.

Definitely test the performance, compression, and deduplication. You are going to get more out of the storage than what you anticipated. We are a Cohesity customer. We have use cases where we integrated Pure Storage with Cohesity.

You get what you pay for. It is expensive, but it really works. So I would really recommend using Pure Storage.

I would rate this solution a ten. It's fast and simple. I would recommend this product to someone considering it. I would advise to look at your budget and use case and decide from there.

It simplifies storage. Data deduplication features make it easier to manage storage and forecast growth.

It makes things ten times easier.

I would rate this solution a nine because there's always room for improvement. They should work on their upgrades, they're not smooth. If you're considering this solution, I would tell you to do a PoC and if it meets your requirements, go for it. It's a good product. They're a good company and they have achieved good work.

I would rate this solution as a nine because of the scalability and upgrade flexibility. I would advise someone considering this solution to take the opportunity to take a look at the product. Take a demo and actually run through day to day operations and see how easy and reliable it is.

I would rate this solution a nine. It's extremely stable and has good performance. The only issue is the cost. I would definitely recommend this solution to somebody considering it.

When we do a mass migration of data to the Pure SAN, it along with any other SAN out there still has to deduplicate that. So, it arrives in a large chunk before it can finally shrink it down to what Pure is capable of reducing it to through deduplication. Now that we have streamlined our environment on the VMware side, we're able to dump stuff in a large amount. However, for those dumpings we have to wait for Pure to sit and chew on it and then de-duplicate it before we could move the next large amount over there.

I would rate this solution an eight. To make it a ten it would have to be a little cheaper. We want to restrict the data set that's required to be on-premise to be kept on-premise and the rest to be moved to the cloud so that we just pay for what we use. If you're looking into Pure Storage I would definitely recommend Pure Storage if you have a need of having something on-premise.

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.

I would rate this a seven out of ten because it's a good performance storage, but the price is a little bit high. Our predicted performance analytics is also going really well, so if you need faster storage and a good product, this is the one you should go ahead with.

My advice is to buy Pure. I am very excited about this product. I would recommend that anybody who is looking at storage should really look at and consider Pure, and they will probably buy Pure. The performance is great. In terms of latency, you can have failures in the system, and the system can keep performing as if nothing happened. It is a great product with great performance. For me, right now, it is the best storage solution in the market, by far. I would rate Pure a ten out of ten and even 11. I have been in the business for 31 years. In the technology sector, most products are the same, they offer the same functionalities. Maybe 30 years ago, when EMC came out with their storage solution, it was something very different, but in the end, everybody offers the same thing. If you look at a Dell EMC box, or you look at HPE, or you look at Hitachi, they offer a SAN with certain performance, they have replication, they have Snapshots. Everybody has more or less the same thing. Pure has a different offer, because of the simplicity, the performance, and all the functionality that Pure is offering. It's a very simple package, it's what makes Pure different. That's why most customers choose Pure.

Do it. I have zero reservations about recommending Pure to anyone who is looking for some really good all-flash. Pure is the way to go, for sure. All-flash is great whenever you can get it but I really like the Pure offering. It's very robust. I heard the "chief scientist," the brains of the deal, explain how some of that stuff works at the bit and byte level and, being a computer science major, I thought that was the coolest thing since sliced bread. Pure works pretty well as is. I've been so busy using all the good stuff that it already does. I'm sure it can be improved, but we haven't got that far yet. We've been milking what it already does. I hesitate to give it a ten out of ten because I'm sure it can be improved somehow. In terms of how it could be improved, I don't know. I'm pretty happy with it as it stands. Pure is the best thing that I have seen in that space so far, hands-down, bar none.

Try a PoC. Work up a PoC and you will really see a performance improvement. For our purposes, Pure doesn't really simplify storage. We just needed the performance for VDI. Our enterprise system is on another storage system. Overall, I would rate Pure at nine out of ten. I'm leaving them room for improvement but, so far, we are satisfied with Pure Storage.

Pure Storage has the right business model and will be around for a long time. I wouldn't be selling Pure Storage if I didn't know it would be a success for the customer in the end. They use an AI to understand what the capacity of the storage will be, how it will be used, and for maintenance detection. E.g., if the maintenance notices something will be going faulty, it uses its AI capabilities to understand what will happen and when it will happen, so you replace it before it happens. Another point a lot of companies is that it doesn't ever go down, because it will know before this happens. Therefore, you can be more proactive.

When researching or selecting potential purchase, start with performance, then try to narrow things down by looking at the additional functionality that a particular solution is going to bring into your environment. There are use cases where raw speed is everything, but almost no one is ultimately in that use case. Most people don't want it to be just fast. They want it to: * Be fast. * Make their DBAs lives easier. * Make their VDI work. * Run their VMs in VMware in a more reliable, faster way, with better HA. Definitely investigate your options. Research a solution's whole set of functionalities, strengths and weaknesses, then compare that to your needs. Don't chose it because it's fastest, cheapest, etc.. Look hard at how you're going to be using it, in detail, over the next 18 to 36 months. If you are using a storage solution in an enterprise, you need something that has an infrastructure, an ecosystem around it, a whole vendor environment. You're not going to just plug it in. You will want to use it in complex environments for important tasks. This is why we have never implemented any sort of homegrown SSD or stripped-down, generic SSD storage arrays. We'd need to build all of those additional "ecosystem" features ourselves. We haven't made a lot of use of Pure's built-in predictive analytics. However, they were beneficial in a couple of our storage capacity-planning discussions. We did use and trust them to understand when it was time to purchase a second //M20, which is the model of array that we use. Partially based on the built-in analytical projections, we purchased a second //M20 array and added capacity to our existing one. Pure Storage helps to simplify storage. Some of the simplification that we observed simply comes out of its all-flash nature. We suspect that most other all-flash storage arrays in the enterprise would have shared a large percentage of that simplification. However, what Pure Storage adds, uniquely, is that their software is very much aimed at reinforcing and sustaining simplification. Performance is not the only goal; it is performance, simplicity, and ease of use.

Use Pure Storage for databases. I have seen a huge increase in speed and performance on our databases.

I would definitely look at Pure Storage.

Try it out. It is easy to get it up and running, and simple to migrate your Oracle workloads over to run an apples to apples comparison. The performance numbers speak for themselves. If you factor in the ease in terms of operations, as well as the cost of the array compared to other solid state arrays, it becomes a clear positive for Pure Storage. All of our customers are looking at submillisecond latency, which is the common Pure Storage metric, and we have definitely seen it there. Everything has been great in terms of throughput and availability has been fantastic.

If I want a product which has reliability and high speed, and Pure Storage is the first name that comes out of my mouth. I recommend them. These days, most storage products, with a few exceptions, are simple to operate. The market has made a huge emphasis on simplicity over the last five to seven years. I don't know that Pure Storage is simpler than anybody else's product, but it certainly is in the category of simple and easy to use.

I would recommend Pure Storage. We investigated some flash storage implementations for it and based off of the way that the appliance works the added cost of flash doesn't scale with the performance that you get with it, so it hits on our middle ground. It works perfectly for us. We don't need to look at any type of flash storage.