Pure Storage FlashArray Reviews

We are using Pure Storage FlashArray for all of our SAN storage for our VMware environment

The solution has benefited our company because of the ease of use and the performance and reliability.

The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is its high stability level.

The GUI could improve, it could be more intuitive. There is hidden functionality.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for approximately eight months.

The solution has been highly stable and we have not had an issue.

I rate the stability of Pure Storage FlashArray a nine out of ten.

We have one person that using the solution to manage it.

We do not plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

I have not used support often but my experience was good.

I rate the support of Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

Positive

I was not there when the initial setup was done, but we recently we swapped the controller and it went smoothly.

Pure Storage FlashArray is a good investment.

The price of Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

My advice to others is for them to plan and try the solution out.

I rate Pure Storage FlashArray an eight out of ten.

The core use for us is to test development.

Simplicity and reliability are the most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray.

It would be good to have metrics of the box's performance so we can see what it delivers, but currently, I can't see what it's actually doing—things like CPU and how it's coping.

For the next release, I would like to improve on certain functionality. They have a thing called SafeMode. So, I'd like some kind of SafeMode Manager because the SafeMode is a good feature, but it's very basic in its functionality.

I have been using this solution for three years. We have the I3 and I2 versions.

So far, it's been faultless. It is a stable solution. 

For us, it is a scalable solution. Traditionally, with Pure Storage FlashArray, there has been a problem with scale at the high end, but that's not us anyway. So, it's not something that concerns us.

It's probably around 150 users in my organization. 

I have spoken a lot to technical presales, and it's been fantastic.

The reason my company decided to use Pure Storage FlashArray rather than something else was the simplicity and proper simplicity of the solution. 

The initial setup is easy. 

It's not cheap. It's priced higher than the market.

I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten because the team is great, and it simply just works.

This solution has been part of a POC. We've been evaluating the solution. 

We went through many renditions of testing with a full load. Even if we pulled a controller out, there was just a blip of response, and it was still extremely acceptable within the limit of what we would consider acceptable - and we're talking about one millisecond here.

This code was mature. We found the hardware to be extremely robust. 

It worked flawlessly.

The deployment was fast. 

The plugin for the ESX, the VMware, was great. That integration is just perfect. They're enhancing it all the time, from what we can tell, so it works flawlessly.

Support is excellent. 

It was a very good proof-of-concept experience.

In the configuration, which we brought in or tested it in, it has a very limited config as far as the array goes. That said, it still did more than our anticipation. 

It's going to be a hard one to manage. They have most of what we were looking at, including some things that we're looking at down the road. The growth on this particular array is almost unlimited for most shops. I would say they still need more enhanced speed, however, that's always a thing with storage.

I've used the solution for six months. 

The stability and reliability are excellent. I would rate it nine out of ten in terms of stability.

The scalability was great. I'd rate it nine out of ten overall. 

We have 20,000 people who were virtual machine users that were just on the test load. 

There is potential to increase usage in the future. That said, it's not up to me right now. We're working with the vendor. 

They have very good technical support. The support model was great. They usually had things resolved in under four hours. Service is very fast.

Positive

The deployment is easy. It was implemented in 15 minutes, including SNAP policies. The process was extremely fast.

It required two people to set up the solution. 

We had the whole thing up and running in 20 minutes and probably was done in an hour for everything, including end-to-end connectivity and having ES6 running on it. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is okay. It's somewhere in the middle. I'd rate it five out of ten overall. 

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. 

We have our own hosted environment that utilizes Pure. We also use it for customers. We use the solution both internally and externally. We use the tool for data storage and backups.

What we had previously wasn't quite working for us. Pure Storage FlashArray gives us the required availability and sufficient performance. We use the secure snapshots for malware protection. We consume less physical storage because of the solution’s deduplication and compression.

Pure is not designed to be a backup storage. It would be nice if Pure had something in its portfolio that provided higher deduplication and compression for backups. It would be nice to get specialized backup storage with immutability, multifactor authentication, and very high deduplication and compression without sacrificing performance.

I have been using the solution for about five years.

It is an extremely stable solution.

We can start with the base array. As we scale on the contract, we get the higher-end controllers. It's a zero downtime upgrade, which is also very nice. We have some large enterprise customers.

The support is amazing.

Positive

The implementation is easy. The time taken for deployment depends on the engineer. Typically, it takes less than one hour. We need one engineer for the configuration. The tool is very easy to maintain. It has no failure rates.

The ROI is good.

We have customers who use a three-year or five-year license. We also have customers who use Evergreen.

I am also working with Nimble and HPE Alletra. One of the pros of Pure Storage is that it deals with all-flash arrays. It's a lot simpler. The other advantage is the collaboration with Pure.

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

It's a very simple tool to use with extremely low latency and high performance.

Pure Storage FlashArray has improved the performance of applications.

Feature-wise, the solution provides direct flash storage.

Improvement-wise, Pure Storage FlashArray must support real-time incidents. I think that Pure Storage should improve its pricing.

Currently, the solution fails to support file screening. I want to see the solution supporting file screening in the future.

I have been using Pure Storage FlashArray for four years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. Presently, five people in my company use the tool.

I rate the solution's technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward.

My company saw a return on investment using the solution as it helped us reduce the time it took to access applications and reduced the space required in our data center.

Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

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.

Our primary use case for this solution is for tier 1 critical applications on-premises. 

Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integration developed by Pure by integrating with vRealize.

With this program, all of our applications are able to perform faster and this enables us to provide faster platforms and services to our customers and employees. This solution is, therefore, a huge benefit to our IT organization. 

VMware is basically the platform that our entire on-premise residence runs on and we incorporate vRealize, vOperations, and SRM. We're also looking at partnering with a backup solution Zerto, so it just gives us a lot more flexibility.

What I like most about this solution, is the speed, resiliency and scalability.

In the next version of this program, I would like to see increased security, higher encryption, and faster throughput.

The stability of this solution is extremely solid.

I am very impressed by the scalability Pure offers.

I haven't had any need to make use of the technical support team yet.

We realized that we needed to invest in a new solution when we ran out of space. We didn't really switch over to Pure, we basically just put the non-critical apps on our Unity storage and brought in Pure to be the tier 1 for the performance of critical applications. We had a few programs on our shortlist, like Dell EMC and Pure. We actually have all three on-site currently. 

The initial setup was very straightforward and we used FlairTech for the deployment. 

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. 

The primary use case is virtual machines.

We can now quickly roll out multiple instances of virtual machines or FlashArray storage, more than we could before.

Speed: Things function pretty quickly for our SAN management team. We have seen a good reduction in the amount of total storage space that we're using because of the deduplication.

It runs fast and is easy to use, and our SAN manager likes it.

The way Pure Storage does the controller storage warranty or replacement has been an issue for some people who just replace the controllers every couple of years, and that's where some of the confusion with pricing and support has come in. They should be clear on the way the controller replacements happen, as it is important to know whether or not you can get a good return on them, because it can be a little confusing.

I rated the solution as a nine out of ten because I knew about a disk failure. Other than that, it would probably be a ten. Disk failures are out of anybody's control. 

The stability is good.

It seems highly scalable.

From what I have heard, the technical support has been good.

We went with Dell EMC first. When we had a ton of trouble with it, we dumped it for Pure Storage.

We are fairly new to using it, so we'll have to wait to see what our data usage is over the next year or so.

The cost was initially high, but once more people were using it, the costs came down. This was because the University was reselling it to other departments.

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

We use it for block storage workloads. We don't use a lot of the features on it.

It has reduced provisioning time. There is ease of management.

The availability and ease of use are the big features. 

Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see.

I have been working with this solution for about three years.

It has been really stable.

That's the only feature that isn't as good. It doesn't scale as large as some of the competitors, but they have started to make them bigger.

We probably have a dozen or so admins who use it, including me. I take care of its maintenance. It is pretty light in terms of maintenance.

It is being used extensively. We'll be increasing its usage. I'm on the networking side. Our IT group is a pretty heavy user too. Both of us will be increasing its usage, but their scale is a little bit bigger than ours.

I would rate them really high. On a scale of one to five, I'd give them a four.

Dell EMC and NetApp would be the two big ones that we used before. We switched because of the cost and the ease of use. Those are the two big ones. In terms of the cost, a lot of it was just introducing a second vendor.

Its setup was really straightforward. It took about half a day. It is pretty quick. All the cabling and facility stuff is usually the longest part.

We had the vendor do most of it. It is like a team, and there is usually one installer guy. Our experience with them was great. Our account team with them is really good. 

Its setup is easier than you think. It is a pretty straightforward deployment.

They have been correcting a couple of things. One of them was that they didn't really scale that large. So, we had to deploy a lot of arrays. They have started to make them bigger now. In addition, until recently, they didn't do a file on the FlashArray. Now, you can share files on it. They recently implemented that, but we haven't tried it yet.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It does everything we wanted to do.