Pure Storage FlashArray is scalable. However, I think we are reaching the maximum for the current version of the storage. We are looking for the advanced version, which is the X2 model.

We are a large company and the total number of end-users that are using the solution is approximately 3,000.

We are using Pure Storage FlashArray extensively in our organization. We use it for everything, such as binaries and databases. We plan to increase usage in the future.

Scalability is very good considering the architecture that they're built around, which is the scale-up architecture. It's very good.

I would rate the scalability of the tool as nine out of ten. The solution is very scalable. There are 12 users of the tool in our organization. We have no plans to increase the current usage unless we merge with another company.

We are hoping that we get to scale up, at some point. My initial impression is that it should be very easy for us to expand just by replacing the disk groups or by adding a shelf. As far as my impressions of being able to scale, I think it will be pretty simple. Until we get to that point, I don't know.

We haven't really seen much on the performance side, because we only have five VMs in there right now. I can definitely say that it is extremely fast. It is much faster than our legacy HPE spinning disks. However, until we get a lot more servers on it, I won't know if we going to hit a bottleneck or cap it out at all. I don't think we will, but until we get more on there, I won't know.

It is scalable and easy to extend. I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. It's very easy. 

We have about four engineers using the solution. 

We increase the storage capacity, however, it depends on the future application usage. 

The scalability is right there if you need it. It's instantaneous. You add another roll of flash right in there. It's literally plug-and-play. That flash becomes online and immediately available. You couldn't ask for a smoother experience. It's just been amazing.

We have 19,000 employees and 3,000 employees from a corporate level. There are about 4,000 different businesses functions that all run their products off of these solutions that we provide from IT.

The solution is scalable. It's modular. You just need to put additional two unit expansions, and that's it.

The data storage is supporting a manufacturing plant. In the end, a lot of people are using those systems. I cannot say a number, however, there is a lot of people. There are probably more than 1000 per each side, considering the 24/7 roles.

The scalability is excellent. I rate the scalability an eight 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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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

I am very impressed by the scalability Pure offers.

It seems highly scalable.

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.

This is a flexible system that is easy to scale.

We initially purchased two FlashArray systems. One of them was small or midsized, and the other was high-end. Then, later, we started upgrading. As per the Everygreen contract, we get free upgrades. Every three years, we get a new controller upgrade, free of cost.

We have also upgraded our capacity and now everything is on the X series. We have four FlashArrays in total and all of our database users are connected to them. The infrastructure and database teams are directly involved with it.

Its scalability is very good. It scales up instead of out, which is typical for a block-based appliance. It is very easy to add expansion shelves or disks. You don't need to worry about shuffling drives around and creating RAID groups. This is all legacy stuff. Most vendors are now the same, but I really think that Pure led the effort for non-disruptive upgrades. They coined the term, and other vendors have since followed suit. They're the leader in the industry for that.

The data reduction technology part of the scalability has been impressive. We really like its ability to host diverse additional workloads, categories of data, and vendor database technologies.

We have purchased a second array. We also added an additional shelf for capacity to the first array. The process of adding both of these devices took less than an hour in each case: The SE shows up, plugs stuff together, turns it on, and the data moves over.

The scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray is good. We are able to upgrade changing disks and controllers and it is simple to do.

We just doubled it in size it was painless.

Scalability is good. It's fairly easy for me to add capacity. 

We have had some issues with Pure Storage FlashArray capacity. We were guaranteed capacity which we did not receive.

The solution is scalable, all storage solutions are scalable.

We do not have end users of this solution, but all of our data from the company is going to the Pure Storage FlashArray.

We plan to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

The scalability of the Pure Storage Flash Array is good and it is easy to do.

We have approximately 2,000 users in my enterprise that are using the solution. The whole company is using the solution.

It is very easy to scale. We have about 4,000 users.

It is a scalable solution.

I can't comment on the solution's scalability since we use it in a test environment. From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable. It is only me who is using the solution in our company.

It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that. 

No issues.

It seems pretty good, but we haven't really tested it.

We have about a hundred users. We will possibly increase its usage. It will be done slowly.

It's been really easy to expand storage with no downtime. It's one of the things we like about it. 

Pure Storage is very scalable. Even the smallest model can be successfully upgraded all the way to the largest model, which is a feature I haven't seen with other solutions.

The solution is highly scalable, but scalability is sometimes undervalued, but everyone can scale. In the case of Pure Storage FlashArray, our experience with upgrading the capacity only involved changing the controllers. So, for example, if you have 20 terabytes and want to go to 100, you only have to change the controllers when paying for that storage capacity upgrade. You can also include the controllers, and the controllers' upgrade does not impact production. You can do it without stopping, so the upgrade of the machines can start with the smallest to the biggest machine that can deploy up to five petabytes. If you cannot do it smoothly, you don't have to stop production and will not have a disruption.

The solution is scalable.

We tend not to do too much expansion but we can easily scale with the way we have structured our purchasing model on Pure. We can add small chunks as we need capacity, and we can once or twice a year add, which is kind on our budgets. It's kind on the IT people, as we don't have to fight our way through approvals because we're buying very massive amounts of expansion. It just makes it a little easier for us to do our own jobs internally.

The product is extremely scalable. 

There is only one person using the solution currently. 

The scalability of the solution is awesome. You have the opportunity to grow as needed.

The entire company uses this solution, so that would be close to 2100 people.

It is very extensively used, and we are continuing to expand.

We use VMware but we have migrated most of the VM load to AWS. We also have Oracle ERP data warehouse and our internal lifecycle management system that is being stored on their storage. It's able to handle the entire load.

It looks like it is scaling pretty well.

The solution is scalable.

We have five customers using this solution.

Previously, you were not able to scale the snapshot. You had to do it manually.

For a flash array of 11 terabytes that you buy in a bundle, you can provision for 44 terabytes. We still have six terabytes free. We can come to a ratio of four on full storage. You can optimize four times what they give to you. They give you a ratio from three to four. It depends on the application you have running. Not everything is taken on the storage. 

If you would like to expand, you can always just buy more storage disks. We will have to get a new license in two years and we might increase our usage then. For the moment, we have enough space.

Scalability is going well. We have been expanding it and we have about five customers now. 

Pure Storage FlashArray is a scalable solution.

We've not had to increase the capacity yet but it does have the flexibility to scale if we need to. At this point, we have 25,000 end-users and we don't expect that to increase. Our user base is fairly static.

It can be easily scaled. I work with over 500 customers who use this solution.

The scalability is already there in both directions. You can scale the storage, as well as the compute.

Scalability is great. Pure's model is adding more disk space to it and then getting a better controller to make sure you are going to stay with your performance. It's a wonderful model.

There have been no issues with the scalability for either Pure or IBM.

Pure Storage FlashArray is scalable, but it has a 5 GB ratio for data which helps with the reduced need for more investment for it to be more scalable.

We are using the solution with approximately 20 VMware hosts.

Pure Storage FlashArray is scalable.

The solution is scalable to an extent. Its deduplication ratio is quite good. You don't actually always need the full amount of physical storage, as opposed to the deduplicating amount of space.

Its scalability beyond a certain amount of petabytes makes it so that it is a separate system if you scale to that much storage. If you're a normal enterprise where you don't scale that much, it's fine. The X90 goes beyond a certain amount, and you have to have a new system that works as a separate system.

Across two locations, we have about 800 people. 

With respect to scalability, it would be nice to create a LAN or a cluster on top of multiple arrays.

Scaling is easy. You just plug in new disks, it sees them and it works. I can't explain it any better than that. You just plug it in and it works.

The scalability options are very nice because you can scale it much better and faster. The scalability was there in the previous environment also, but this is far better than what we had before. It basically helps the user in case they are looking for more storage. We can scale it much faster.

The solution is very scalable because it is fairly smooth and easy to upgrade. 

The scalability of the solution is extremely costly.

We haven't had to scale out yet because the solution is new to our organization, but I have heard it's pretty easy to do. Right now, we have a capacity of about 100 TB. We don't plan to scale right now. When we bought it, we sized it to allow for about two years of growth. So unless something unexpected happens, we should be okay.

We have had no issues with scaling up to whatever demands that we have.

We haven't really scaled up.

We've never had an issue with scale as we've deployed to some of our clients.

It scales very well. A new box contains three units, and uses the power of a toaster oven.

The solution is very scalable.

I'm confident it will grow as the hospital grows.

Good to very good.

The scalability is excellent and is very easy. 

The scalability of this solution is really good.

The scalability is great.

The scalability is very good.

It's scalable. We've grown the product two or three times since we got it. We've actually purchased two more storage arrays since then that are not used for Epic, so we're expanding it. We'll be using this for many years in the future.

Scalability is great. 

No, the unit that we bought contains 40TB of usable space and we are using 10TB so far.

It's a highly scalable product.

In our organization, we have 1,500 users.

We have plans to increase the usage.

Pure is our primary enterprise storage. We have a smaller one with about a 120 servers and a little over 400 virtual desktops. We have one 20 terabyte model and a 10 terabyte model. I believe it is scalable.

They are at least 30 percent faster than their closest competitor. It depends always on the differences on how you scale. I had customers get NetApp, who couldn't get anything out of it. They finally added another storage shelf and started getting some decent numbers. Well, instead of adding a couple more storage shelves, I could do that with one Pure Storage array. What if I don't need that much storage and don't want to have five shelves? You don't need that with Pure Storage, because one shelf will strain.

I don't have any massive Pure Storage installs. Probably the biggest ones that I have been apart of are five or six arrays.

The scalability is handy. You can just add more drives. They automatically synchronize. You don't have to do anything but snap them in there. It is pretty easy.

It's very scalable. I probably run about 10 million patient visits a year through the system. I've never had a problem. It's back-ending my entire medical record platform. It's a very stable platform.

You can scale easily. You can extend it online, change controllers online. Scalability gets five out five stars.

This solution is easy to scale. 

FlashArray is best suited to a large company. We provide any kind of hosting service in our region, so we have multiple customers hosted in our data center. The environment is large and we have more than 25 different customers and terabytes of data. 

Scalability seems pretty simplistic. You just buy more drives and slap them in the box, then tack it onto your current storage pool. It seems like it would be pretty easy to scale out.

However, I don't know about scaling up. I don't think they do extra data shelves, so you would have to buy a whole new unit.

The scalability is very modular. When you need more storage or power, you change one brick, and you don't have to go through a long process.

We have never, ever run up against a bottleneck. It's a piece of cake to scale it. You plug in more and you keep going until you max out your bandwidth and then you put another storage controller in, a Fibre Channel controller, and go some more.

I rate the tool's scalability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. 

We did not have to do that, but it looks like it is.

We find the product to be quite scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. 

The solution is extensively used. Likely usage will increase in the future. 

The scalability is possible. It's pretty simple to just add more storage as needed. We plan to do so next year. Our impression is that it will be an easy process.

We have about 2,000 users at this time. It may even be as high as 10,000 when you factor in academic users. 

This is a scalable product but not as much as the Infinidat InfiniBox. That solution is more expandable.

This solution is very scalable.

It's scalable. You can hit a point where you fill up enough drives in the shelves. We're at that point now where we've got to expand. We've got to add another shelf.

This solution scales well. The issue we had with stability is now under control, so we are able to scale out fine. We can just drop in new disks when we need them.

The solution is easy to scale. I'm running two environments right now, so I need to scale. I've got an A-side and a B-side.

We decided how big of a failure domain that we wanted to entertain. We decided to split three into what could have been one single controller interface system. However, at some point, if we lose 500 terabytes, what does that do to our company? Now, we have things like active clusters which mitigate a lot of these issues, but people still need to be wary about how they design their failure domains.

The scalability is good.

It's scalable. We started with a very small storage array and now we're in a much larger one. I think we're up to 40 terabytes.

We scaled up when we bought new arrays where we get the snapshot replaced and upgraded for no extra costs. During the workloads and while the upgrade was taking place there were no outages, none whatsoever.

We haven't scaled yet, but we're planning to. We do upgrades constantly.

It's very scalable and easy to do.

The scalability is very good.

We haven't done an upscale of the solution, maybe more in future projects.

It scales well, around a petabyte.

Scalability doesn't require much work. The expansions are immediately used. We install more disks, which are automatically assigned to the volumes and the files.

I have increased the capacity during working hours with no impact on production at all.

We have around 4,000 users. 

It has been scalable so far.

It is highly scalable. In particular, with the ability to view analytics and some of capacity planning, that helps us in this regard as well.

From what we've been told, it looks like it would be really scalable if we purchased more. The licensing and scalability patterns are really cost-effective. We don't have to rebuy things in different tiers to just continue on, so we like that.

We have already made upgrades now for two months. We think that the scalability is very good. If you want to go to another array or add more capacity, they will change it, if you have the support. So, we put more capacity on it. There is a simple way to do it which has a protection of investment.

It's granular.

Scalability appears to be easy but we haven't had to use it. 

There have been no issues at this point. There has not been a need to scale yet, however the scale prior to deployment was more than sufficient.

It is a scalable product, but not for our needs.

This solution is used by 100 people in our organization.

The flash array scales up well, but it doesn't really scale-out. I think that's more where Pure's FlashBlade comes into play. You'd have to replace it with the next model up controller, in order to scale.

It is absolutely scalable to our company's needs.

So far it seems good.

In terms of scalability, we buy new controllers or we build new shelves and we're able to scale out pretty much whenever we want, as long as we have the money to spend.

It scales absolutely, to the highest level you can think of.

I believe it will scale nicely. We've not had reason to push that limit yet. We just haven't had a need to do that. I believe they've got a very broad portfolio so that we could scale it fairly dramatically beyond where we're at right now.

At the moment, we have one data pack. We think that we may buy another data pack this year to scale the system up.

We've got two arrays. Capacity-wise, we've over-subscribed on storage, so we haven't had to expand them at this point. 

We have not had an issue with the scalability of Pure Storage FlashArray.

We plan to increase the usage of this solution.

With scalability, you just add more shelves and buy new controllers. If you have the Evergreen Storage subscription, then you get new controllers every year. 

I can buy more storage, if needed. However, with the dedupe and compression, it will be a while before I need to.

The scalability works. We are using between 30TB to 50TB.

Scalability is okay. We can scale it quite high if we want. This is what we have seen on some projects, which is good,

The scalability is good. 

It is easy to scale.

With scalability, I have run into a little problem with our last upgrade. There were some undocumented limitations to the number of drives that our controller could run on. So, instead of putting in a new data pack as we had anticipated, we had to keep adding and removing to get up to the capacity that we needed to be. What should have been a one day process (or a few hours) turned into a month and a half process.

So far, the scalability is great. As a partner, what we want is to keep selling more and more products to our customers. One feature that Pure has is that it gives you even more storage as the company develops new functionality or does software upgrades. Even though it doesn't allow us to sell as much as we would like, our customers appreciate that. They have more capacity without investing any money. So the scalability is great.

The scalability was also very good.

The product is scalable.

It's definitely scalable. It can grow with a company's needs.

We have around 5 Pure Storage SANs and several of them are maxed out on trays.

There were no scalability issues. NDU and NDD were very simple, without interruption or performance decrease for its cluster nature, active/passive.

The capacity we needed did not cause any issues with scalability. However, fairly large companies may have issues expanding. The controllers are limited to a certain amount of storage. When that capacity limit is reached on what the controllers can handle, another set of controllers will be needed to compensate for the additional storage.

The scalability is very good.

Scalability is near excellent. In terms of provision capacity, a total footprint is over 400 terabytes provisioned out to systems in my organization. 

We haven't reached the stage yet, specifically on VDI, where we have to scale.

In our environment, there are only two nodes. We have three products. Each one has two nodes and they can't extend any further.

We can quickly add more shelves and drives with larger sizes, which is perfect. The whole concept of keeping it all modular is definitely new.

I have never had a problem getting more storage, so scalability seems pretty good.

None whatsoever. The product functions as designed.

Scalability is good. 

The scalability of the solution is not as good as it probably could be. In regards to storage and SANDS, it's very difficult to have a scalable solution when you're talking about hardware stores. It's just really difficult to do that. Overall, I think Pure does a good job with scalability.

The scalability is good.

No.

I have not had any issues with scalability.

We did some add-ons months ago without any downtime.

It is scalable. We have about 81 users.

It scales well. 

It's scalable to our needs.