We haven't done much scaling. We're ordering an upgrade this week and therefore we will know soon enough how easy it is to expand. We're upgrading the controllers and the disks this month. Scalability so far seems good.

The users are 90% Oracle admins and then 10% SQL admins.

It's used pretty extensively. It is our top-tiered storage for the entire company in our major data centers. We have two of them and we are upgrading them this month.

The solution can scale if you need it to. It offers good scalability.

We have already expanded capacity and installed additional chokes and it works perfectly, with no downtime and no impact on production.

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. We're looking forward to installing more clusters and extending the offering.

While we have five main users that manage the arrays, we have many, many general users of the product.

Pure FlashArray X NVMe is a scalable solution, but the scalability depends on the load. You cannot increase capacity if latency is present. So scalability mainly depends upon the latencies. I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a six out of ten for scalability.

Scalability of this solution is decent, and I would rate it a seven out of ten. We've recently become a VNC client, and you can't use Pure Storage with VNC yet. They are working towards it, but in the meantime, it prohibits us from using VNC along with some of the Pure features that they have.

I would give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. It is highly scalable. We use Pure FlashArray X NVMe mainly for medium to large businesses.

I would rate the scalability as an eight out of ten. It is highly scalable, but there is room for slight improvement. It is suitable for both medium-sized and enterprise businesses.

For our environment, we have seen the ability to scale up and out very easily with the product. We have also performed storage and controller upgrades live with zero downtime. That is another key component of our requirements that were met. I have been involved with every upgrade and there have been no issues. Scalability for us has been great. It works well and it does what it's supposed to do, as advertised.

We have approximately eight users of Pure FlashArray X NVMe at our company and we rely on it every day.

The only aspect that I can talk to is the benchmarking that I did from a Database perspective, as we purchased the X70 for our Database workloads. What we want to see is as we increase workload the latency should remain stable. We are able to push the X70 way past our current needs from a throughput and IOPS perspective – without any degradation on latency. As we ramped up more machines into the tests, the only limitations we ran into were switch ports and FCoE saturation – the X had headroom.

I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe's scalability a nine out of ten.

We've tried to add a new disc in the past. It's easy to expand, and we found the process of expansion very simple. 

In our company, we have 2,000 employees working on virtual desktops. If you include our customers, that number is about 4,000.

We have not yet scaled this solution.

Its scalability is good. I wouldn't call it excellent because you're limited on capacity customization. You get that limitation with any array, but it seems there is a little bit more flexibility on the Unity side from a scale-out standpoint. Pure is not flexible on your datapak expansions. You're locked into a certain amount of storage. You can't customize your Pure flash storage to the degree that you can on the EMC Unity side.

Currently, its usage is pretty extensive. We're considering purchasing C-class arrays for our next use case, and we're about to use them more because of several factors. One of them has been that EMC is now starting to lose our organization's trust because of subpar support coming mostly out of India. The offshore talent in Asia or Australia is good, but the offshore talent in India is not good. Usually I know more than their L1/L2 support folks about their product.

The way that we have looked at scalability is from a linear scalability perspective with multiple storage frames. We like having the capability of scaling wide with multiple storage frames as opposed to trying to scale too large with any one individual frame. However, we also have an X90R2 with two petabytes of NVMe in it which fits in about six rack units of space. This has been transformational, as well. From there, we scale out linearly with multiple of X90R2s, as opposed to trying to somehow cluster them or make them larger.

The solution scales well and is easy to do. 

We have approximately 10 dedicated customers and another 10 or 15 in the shared use case. Our customers are our users and they may be a company that runs their own software development and this is only their storage on their cloud offerings that they purchase from us.

We plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten.

It's exactly what we expected. We've had it for one year, and we sized it as we wanted to. While we did this, a couple of departments actually requested more storage than we anticipated. So, we had to increase our use of the storage, and that was very easy – we just gave the vendor a call and said that we wanted more storage. They unlocked it for us.

We are four people, and we may put in four hours total each week on this product. Maybe even less. So, one hour for each person each week. That's the most we work with this product in total.

We haven't had any issues in terms of scalability.

The tool is scalable. 

We haven't deployed anything too large yet. That said, just based on the design, that two-controller design, we're not going to have any of the scale problems that we had with SolidFire. They do scale it differently as it's a two-controller design. However, you can easily upgrade by upgrading your drive sizes due to the fact that it's all NVMe. The performance is top-notch, as it's all NVMe based.

It is somewhat scalable but it's not infinitely scalable. They could improve the petabyte-scale with greater capacities. 

Scalability has been great. We have run into a couple of instances recently where we are running out of space. So we have had to buy some more packs for it and they have deployed fine and it has increased smoothly.

Scalability-wise, it is expensive but good. They love to add boxes, and they did a very good job. You can easily add boxes to the array cells, both disks or controllers. The nice thing about it is that you don't have to change your schema. In other words, you don't have to reprogram or reconfigure anything. You simply add a box, and you have more disk space. Essentially, you can extend a disk to whatever services you are running without having to reconfigure a lot of stuff. That's actually a huge benefit. 

We have 200 employees in our firm, and almost everyone in our firm uses this solution. All the databases in the firm are running off Pure FlashArray X NVMe.

We absolutely see this working as our company grows. Even though it is fairly simplified in the way that they do their RAID and everything like that. It makes pulling drives and putting new ones in super simple. The costs could be improved though because it is quite expensive.

This solution is very scalable. It's good enough for us at the moment.

The solution is very scalable as you can add capacity very easily. We have about 2000 users using the storage array.

FlashArray's latency is the best on the market. I don't know of another product that has latency this low. Read and write latency averages .5 submillisecond. It's good for online financial transactions using Oracle.

We have not tested scalability yet, so it is to be determined.