Most Helpful Review
Researched IBM FlashSystem but chose Pure Storage FlashArray: Has high reliability and enables us to have faster access to our data
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM FlashSystem vs. Pure Storage FlashArray and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
390,510 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
We are a 100% satisfied with the stability of the solution.
Stability-wise, this solution is fine.
The feature I find most valuable, is the deduplication, because the nature of the data that we are using in our current environment, has a lot of replicated data.
The performance of the All-Flash System is very good. There is more enhanced performance and data production in the solution, which I appreciate.
The initial setup was really straightforward. It was not complex. Deployment took one month, due to the data migration duration.
The FS900 uses custom built flash modules offering with better latency, and is also denser packed then most modular all-flash arrays using commodity SSDs.
An easy interface to set up, good build quality, and easily accessible parts for hot swapping combined with sub 500 us latency under heavy load.
The initial customer technical support was efficient and effective.
We also use VMware integrations developed by Pure, their plugins in our vCenter environment. They help by allowing our non-technical operations teams to deploy new data stores and resize data stores without me having to involve myself all the time to do those simple tasks.
Their REST API is wonderful, well-documented, and easy to use.
As soon as we introduced our first Pure Storage FlashArray, the first benefit was at least twice the performance increase. Our production databases simply ran twice as fast with no other change.
Pure Storage technology allowed us to automate tasks, reducing something which started as a 12-hour turnaround down to about 15 minutes.
The data reduction technology part of the scalability has been impressive, like its ability to host additional workloads, volumes of data, and databases.
The performance is very good.
For us, the most valuable feature is the compression and deduplication. Being able to deploy a three to one ratio for storage is absolutely critical in today's world with the growing need for storage and the growing need for more space.
The ease of management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I would have also said that it's pretty fast but now our SQL servers are starting to beat it up pretty bad.
I think the only thing the developers can look at, is that it is limited to 25 gigabytes currently. In the next release they might want to increase that.
This solution needs a management console where we are alerted to issues and can report them, or escalate them through email or another method.
I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights.
The solution is not easy to implement. It takes a lot of time to study the product and it's a little complicated in general.
The solution is not able to replicate data in one-to-many scenario.
When we performed some HW fault tests under heavy load, we found that some of the parts (fan units and PSUs) should only be removed from the airflow for a short time (less than a minute) when replacing.
Include an option to upload the support package to the IBM ECuRep when opening an IBM PMR.
If they could make it cheaper, that would be something.
The higher education moves slowly. We are still looking forward to implementing the full list of existing features.
In terms of the future, I have been excited by some of the copy data management stuff that they're talking about building into the environment. There are feature sets where I've done a lot of automation work. So, I am always looking forward to extensions of their API. They're also talking about a phone home centralized analytics database being used as a centralized management console with a list of new cloud features, but this doesn't seem finalized.
Storage. There could be better storage.
The scalability of the solution is not as good as it probably could be.
A year ago they promised that they would be able to read through the database encryption with more metric and they have not delivered on that patch, which is significant because it gives us back so much more storage room. We want to be able to read through the encryption.
We would like to see better troubleshooting aspects. It helps us if we can find out where the problem is. Right now, it's difficult. Sometimes it's difficult to pinpoint the issue. If they had more visibility and more troubleshooting feature built into the tool that would really help.
In the next release of this solution, we would like to see automated copy data management for SQL Server.
Pricing and Cost Advice
For a yearly license, it is about $100,000. There are no additional costs. The entire system is included.
In terms of other contemporary arrays, Pure is something you need to have a use case for, as it's not priced for you to buy one off-the-shelf. If you have a use case, heavy lift Oracle Databases, any type of noticeable virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), or need low latency and high throughput, you should consider all-flash at least and probably Pure Storage.
I don't know the exact cost but it's around $1,000.
Pure has been flexible with us on the pricing models.
We have 16 or 18 arrays. We like to do the three-year support model so that we get Evergreen and therefore, we get free upgrades. We pay around more than 1.5 million dollars.
Our costs are around $100,000.
I have had a couple of customers who have complained about the cost. It can be a little more expensive than some of the other platforms. After it has been installed, I have never had a customer say, "I wish we wouldn't have spent all that extra money." They have always been happy with the product after it has been installed. They might be on the fence about it because of the price, but everybody who I have ever seen install it, they are always happy with it.
We evaluated Oracle and Hitachi, but Pure Storage had the better pricing.
The cost has room for improvement.
out of 33 in All-Flash Storage Arrays
Average Words per Review
out of 33 in All-Flash Storage Arrays
Average Words per Review
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
|IBM FlashSystem products are enterprise computer data storage systems that store data on flash memory chips. Unlike storage systems that use standard solid-state drives, IBM FlashSystem products incorporate custom hardware based on technology from the 2012 acquisition of Texas Memory Systems. This hardware provides performance, reliability, and efficiency benefits versus competitive offerings.|
Pure Storage FlashArray is the world’s first enterprise-class, all-NVMe flash storage array. It represents a new class of storage – shared accelerated storage, that delivers major breakthroughs in performance, simplicity, and consolidation. Pure Storage is fresh and modern today and will be for the next decade. Without forklift upgrades or planned downtime, Pure takes the work out of storage ownership and delivers unprecedented customer satisfaction.
Learn more about IBM FlashSystem
Learn more about Pure Storage FlashArray
|Celero, Friedhelm Loh Group, Clarks, Mingkang Natregro Health Food Group, Sofia, Etisalat Fights Fraud, UF Health Shands Hospital, Generali, Elecon Engineering Company Limited, Ventiv , Technology, CPFL Energia, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., SciQuest, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, Paddy Power, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Interconnect Services, Severstal IP-Only AB, PVU Group GmbH||Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas|
Financial Services Firm45%
Comms Service Provider18%
Software R&D Company30%
Financial Services Firm13%
Financial Services Firm20%
Software R&D Company27%
Comms Service Provider10%
Financial Services Firm9%