We performed a comparison between Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System and SolidFire 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."We like the data reduction rates. That has been really helpful. You get 4U of Pure storage replacing something like two racks of spinning disks. One of the things that has contributed to that are the data reduction rates."
"The speed of the Pure FlashArray is very, very fast and nothing in the market can compare to it."
"The deduplication and compression rates are beyond impressive."
"The amount of throughput that we're getting is really nice."
"The first year, we started out with one or five terabytes and it took what was 20 terabytes of storage down to less than one terabyte."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are the management view of the solutions, ease of provision, and deprovision, it is fantastic."
"Because we were able to afford to go all flash, we don't manage the tiers, we're not moving data up, and we're not waiting for overnight cycles."
"The performance and the ever-growing maintenance are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"It's a very compact device. For a medium-sized business, it's very helpful because the device is efficient and very fast."
"The simplicity of it."
"SolidFire has seamless performance for the nodes and extensions. I also like the tool’s scalability. The product’s performance does not get affected when we scale either up or down. This is not the case with other products."
"Templates are already predefined for it. If you're coding it up, it will take two days. You can pick up a template right there from the API, and it just works for you. Implementation done in 10 minutes."
"Feature-wise, it is a good solution allowing users to monitor and simplify their networks. The solution also provides its users with flexibility by enabling them to utilize its extensions."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its scalability."
"We can just buy them, scale them as we need on demand, and we don't have to spend so many front end cycles on designing the architecture."
"We can add a node, we add compute, we add storage, and we've had really good luck with that."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"I would like some form of QoS implemented. As a service provider, it would be beneficial to have it."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography."
"It was a little costly. The price was ultimately higher than both of the other solutions that we evaluated. I'd say that's the only downside."
"The price could be better."
"I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good."
"The technical support is okay, but could be improved."
"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."
"It has to be flexible according to the customer's requirements. It has to be aligned with the customer business and the business environment."
"Though it is a stable solution, its users may face some security issues at times...The security provided by the solution is one area that can be improved."
"The inclusion of more protocols and interfaces would make it easier to integrate with other products."
"They could make the mNode more user-friendly. Now you need to configure and add nodes by CLI and it’s not really easy to manage. If they created a web interface to do the management of the mNode, that would be great!."
"We have a large fiber channel infrastructure, and that's one area that we haven't seen implemented in SolidFire, its more iSCSI."
"I think there is room for improvement needed with its storage capability. A bigger node is needed."
"The user interface needs to be improved. Much of the client feedback involves comments such as "Oh, it's hard to navigate through.""
"SolidFire should start from two nodes instead of the four nodes. That's the only thing. In a lot of solutions, we have to use four nodes, that's the better thing. But as a starting point, two is better. That's why their starting point is expensive."
"We had some false positives, power supplies failing, and that's really been about it. We had a couple of glitches during some upgrade processes but nothing that was really concerning to us."
Earn 20 points
Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is ranked 34th in All-Flash Storage while SolidFire is ranked 19th in All-Flash Storage with 33 reviews. Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is rated 8.0, while SolidFire is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System writes "Has a fantastic feature-set and works well with workflow solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolidFire writes "A versatile storage solution suitable for various workloads in cloud environments providing scalable architecture, granular Quality of Service and consistent performance". Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is most compared with Dell Unity XT, whereas SolidFire is most compared with NetApp AFF, Dell PowerStore and VMware vSAN.
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.
