I have previously used EMC PowerMax. I chose Pure Storage FlashArray because it was of lower cost. Also, we wanted to keep competition between the vendors.

Before Pure, we had EMC VNX, and we were having the entire array reboot and we would lose a server room at a remote casino. All VMs would go down and have to reboot because the entire array would reboot. That happened at least three or four times and then that's what made us decide to pay for what I would say is around triple the cost, just to guarantee that that doesn't happen. To my organization, money is less of the concern as the availability. Nobody wants to get that phone call. We had EMC, it was bad. Support wasn't great. I wouldn't say it was bad but it wasn't great. What put us over the top was that Pure is stable.

We are replacing legacy HPE EVA and legacy Hyper-V systems moving to VMware with Pure Storage, as our storage solution.

We have a very old HPE EVA system. We knew that we needed an upgrade, because our system is 10 years old and out of support. We brought in a number of consultants to talk to us about whether we should upgrade our Hyper-V system or move to VMware. Thre or four consultants recommended (almost all of them) moving to all-flash. They highlighted Pure Storage as one of the industry leaders in all-flash storage. That is why we started working with Pure. 

I've also worked with Dell, which is a bit harder to set up. 

We used to use IBM XIV.

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

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. 

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

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.

We have worked with solutions from HPE, IBM, and Hitachi. We don't work with any of these vendors now. We switched because Pure storage is much easier to manage. It is also more stable and it is very easy to work with.

For example, there is no shutdown procedure. If you want to power down the environment then you just unplug the power and that's it. Once you reconnect the power, it is up. With legacy storage, there is a shutdown procedure. You have to shut down the host, then the SAN switch, then the storage.

With legacy storage, there is also a procedure to bring it up. You have to power up the enclosures, then the controller, then the SAN environment, and then the server. We had to follow a long set of steps with more dependencies.

After a power outage, the storage devices from the other vendors did not always come back online. For example, we implemented a PoC with the IBM FlashSystem and a power outage occurred. The management tool crashed and did not come back up. We had to wait for IBM engineers to come and fix the issue. Whereas, with Pure, when the power came back on, the system came back online immediately.

The other storage systems were not as user-friendly. For example, I had a Hitachi G600 and I wanted to extend the block capacity. I had to spend between 30 minutes and one hour to complete it. It's quite complex. With Pure, that would be taken care of in seconds by going to the console, selecting the volume, and performing the reset.

I previously used IBM, HDS, LSI Storages.

Our previous platform did not support SAP.

The driver for us to implement Pure Storage in our SAP landscape was that it was SAP certified.  Additionally, it had really good numbers and reviews.

We knew we needed to switch solutions because our last storage unit was running out of support so we needed a new one. We chose Pure Storage because we've been using it for a while back and knew that it's a good product. 

We were using another solution previously and we switch to Pure Storage Flash Array because we wanted the latest and greatest solution.

We previously used Dell EqualLogic. It was going under life, and it was just a legacy spinning disk with an SSD cache. So, the main reason for switching was just a tech refresh and an upgrade.

My clients know it's time to switch solutions because I run a proof of concepts where I test the manufacturer's equipment. If I find something that is a big difference then I let them know about it. Cost, performance, tools, and ease of use are all factors that we take into consideration when choosing to switch. We also chose this solution because of the Evergreen upgrade and the ease of use.

Yes, plainly put, it sucked and we wanted to get to a solution that was fast, easy to maintain, and reliable.

We had issues with it not handling the load and could never trust that it was serving data fast enough to not be causing issues.

We were using another solution. We switched because it was very old, and we were looking at something that was an SSD. 

We knew we needed to switch to this solution because the industry is going away from spinning disks. We were on spinning disks, and the whole industry is going away from that. 

We are still using IBM but we are not happy with it. IBM has taken old technology and tried to make it new. Pure has started from the ground up and built it.

In this company we used an IBM V 7000 and in a previous one, an EMC VMAX.

When comparing the solution to an EMC array or an IBM B7000, both of which I've used, Pure Storage FlashArray is light years ahead of everybody else. I've used a variety of these solutions and many of them are very complicated. 

We needed to do a lifecycle replacement, and we also knew that at the time that flash was just really starting to take hold. We had used a hybrid model before and we weren't necessarily satisfied with that product from another vendor.

We evaluated three products and Pure just really outshines them on the pre-sales. On the financing side of it they were more flexible. Today I would look at it and say that it's much more of an OPEX model, similar to Cloud, and as we try to promote our own on-premise cloud, that continues to be important to us. We want to be transparent about cost all the way back to our customer.

We also use HPE Nimble. This solution scales much better. That said, it is a bit more complex to implement when you compare it to Nimble. 

There are two different classes in our design. We put more critical applications on Pure due to its stability and resilience. Less important or less critical applications or servers are on Nimble. However, the capacity of Nimble is far larger than Pure Storage.

We previously used an EMC Array.

We switched because the response time went from a few hours to minutes.

The other piece was the amount of space that we were able to use because of the duplication and compression built in the unit. We can use more capacity and pay less.

We were using HPE 3PAR, which we liked, but this is much more cost-effective.

We also use the Dell EMC Storage Suite.

This solution is easier than what we've used in the past.

We switched because our old solution wasn't great and we wanted to replace it with a better solution. 

I am also working with Pure FlashArray X series and Pure Storage FlashBlade.

We have used other flash arrays in the past.

The IBM V7000 was bought for just NAS and secondary storage and for use as storage for our AS/400 platform. We switched to Pure Storage because of the way the system performs and the fact that it does everything in 32K sizing. The IOPS are high and the support and customer service are exceptional.

I previously used other solutions.

We previously used EMC VNX.

I have worked with similar solutions from IBM and NetApp. The advantage to those solutions is that you can create a LAN on top of multiple arrays.

We were looking to get away from Dell EMC to some other platform, and Pure was the number-one disruptor in the market. Their story, their price point, and what they said they could deliver are what sold us.

We used EMC in the past. The reason we switched was the requirements of the users. They need better IOPS and better performance. That made us move to Pure.

Pure was the first solution we used and now we use a couple more. One of them is an EMC product and then we also have a new start-up called Vector, so we currently use three solutions.

We previously used Hitachi, 3PAR, and HP but we had performance limitations.

We replaced another Legacy Solution. We wanted to maintain its isolated capabilities.

We didn't have all-flash. We needed a lot of performance for all of our production environment, and for everything else that was connecting to us. That is what basically drove us to Pure Storage.

Prior to going with Pure Storage FlashArray, we were using the range of all of the Dell EMC products.

While all these products have their own uses, Pure Storage FlashArray is in a market of its own. 

When I started at my current employer, our SAN was eight years old and out of support. It was very urgent that we replaced it immediately.

We switched to Pure Storage mainly because of the frustration of dealing with performance on the old platforms that we used to use.

I've also used 3PAR. Performance on Pure Storage is a lot faster than 3PAR.

We previously used a Hitachi hybrid storage solution with both traditional storage and flash storage.

We switched to this solution because of the timing. We are using this solution in conjunction with a solution from EMC. 

Prior to this solution, we were using the IBM Storage Network. The support was not very good, and the feature set was very limited.

We needed something that was simpler to manage and maintain.

We were previously using a NAS, and it was not performing.

We switched because the performance was bad with our previous solution, and it was expensive.

We had multiple platforms beforehand. We had HPE, IBM. 

We have another platform using spinning disk 600GB 15K RPM SAS drives, but our applications and servers have grown so much that the storage was getting saturated with the requests from the applications.

We discussed the option to add more SAS disk and memory to the controllers of that array versus buying a Solid State Drive Array (SSDA).

We concluded that it would be more beneficial for our company to invest in an SSDA, and the results paid off.

We were also using other technologies such as EMC, and Hitachi. We were using various other SAN storage systems. It was approximately three years ago.

We switched to Pure Storage FlashArray because it was easier to administer, and it is very powerful and fast.

We used an older program, but it was too slow. The main reason for switching over to run our VMware on Pure was the speed and, after several meetings with other vendors, we decided to go with the all-flash model. We replace our programs every five years because we want the best performance.

I have at least three customers who have had other stores solutions and installed Pure Storage. There is no comparison. Their old storage solutions have now been relegated to archive, or they have ripped them out.

We had tons of old physical servers and needed the storage room. It was more cost-effective to set this solution up for running our VM environment off it.

The solution is bigger and faster than what we had before.

Prior to Pure, the original implementations that we had for other vendors had been in place for about 15 years. This actually replaces another all-flash array product that had been in place for the three years previous.

The old systems we had were just not doing the job, so we knew we had to change.

A local VAR was talking about our challenges and some different solutions to take care of it. Pure just seemed like it could fit the bill.

We have Tegile and HPE 3PAR in our environment.

We clearly have seen the difference between having storage on Dell EMC or NetApp versus what we have now on Pure Storage. The investment was a clear win for us.

We decided it was time to switch because the other solution was terrible. We were using Dell EMC Unity and it never worked properly and was full of software bugs. Dell EMC couldn't fix it and they had no intention of fixing it. 

We switched solutions because we were looking to expand our storage and we looked at various options. We were having an issue with our previous solution in that we had to continuously upgrade solutions and had restrictions of creations of new environments. 

I think our client, Chapman University, was on Dell EMC before they went to Pure. What I'm about to say are some of my impressions, I don't know that I know all the details that went into the decision. I think that they were just done with Dell EMC and that Dell EMC's all-flash solution was an afterthought, where Pure's was engineered from the ground up to be all-flash, as opposed to bolted on after the fact.

From what I saw at Chapman University, they wanted the increase in performance plus the decrease in power utilization and space and cooling in their data center. That dramatically mitigated a whole bunch of data center issues they had before. It didn't take nearly as much power to power it or to cool it and they reduced their footprint significantly.

I have used Dell EMC before. 

It is our first solid-state array.

I used to work with Hitachi and switched to this product for ease of use and for performance.

In the past, we had an IBM storage device, however, when we compare this old storage with the Flash Pure, it's just so much better.

I have approximately 20 years of experience with enterprise solutions. These include various hyper-converged systems, all-flash storage systems, business continuity, and disaster recovery solutions for data assurance.

My experience is with products from a lot of different vendors. These include IBM, Dell EMC, Pure, Infinidat, and others.

We have switched to EMC. They gave us more array for less money. 

Our older solution was not very good. Pure increased our speed a lot. We needed to increase our storage because we were filling up the array. Our SQL footprint has greatly increased over the past three years.

This solution was chosen because we happened to be doing a POC when our previous solution failed horribly, and we moved our production to Pure. It was able to pick it up, which was the selling point.

We thought we we going to go with the new version of Hitachi, and everything was going to fine: Lift, shift and replace with the new one. What we started doing was exploring the marketplace, then figuring out, "Is this the best option for us? Could it be simpler?" Because the Hitachi was a tank, but it was not simple to use. It performed very well, but it did not perform like an all-flash array does.

The analytics are great. Previously, we had Hitachi solutions, and it was very hard to understand what was happening with the array. One of the great things about the Pure Storage solution is you can instantly know just by logging in or checking Pure1. You can do it on your phone. Hitachi doesn't have anything like that. It's amazing that you can get this type of visibility from your storage array. All the analytics feed up into Pure1, and you can just see them whenever you want.

It used to be that people would buy Pure Storage arrays and they would use it for a single instance application, like an Oracle database. We never did that. We used the product to replace our entire giant Hitachi G1000 storage arrays. Everything that we had went to the Pure Storage arrays. We had three giant M70s that are now X90s which house everything the company was running when I was a customer.

We were getting rid of Dell EMC because they were awful and they cost a fortune. vSAN was also an option because we use a lot of VMware but we stuck with Pure Storage. It was a solution that we'd put in a few years ago and we didn't have any problems with it so we wanted to continue using it. We have a good working relationship with the account managers in Scotland. They're really good.

We moved from an infrastructure that was owned by another team, so we needed something to move our own stuff onto. We originally tried some hyperconverged solutions from Dell EMC, but they didn't perform well at all. It took years to get that together and when we ran our benchmarks on them, and we decided they were not good. So, we immediately turned eyes to Oracle who is a big provider for my whole company, not just my team, and talked to them about what they had that was going to suit us, and they pointed us towards Pure Storage. As soon as we had a proof of concept and were testing it, we decided to run with it.

We have also used NetApp, but not for all-flash. This is our first all-flash solution.

We noticed a dramatic increase in application performance when moving it from NetApp to Pure Storage.

Pure Storage seemed more cost-effective than NetApp. When we did our POC, we saw big performance gains between all-flash on NetApp and all-flash on Pure Storage. It was significantly better.

Because of our clients, we needed a more structured solution with performance which was stable. So, we tested new storage, and Pure Storage was the one that revealed to be more flexible and simpler. 

Our storage is old, so we were searching for what would be the next good solution for us. We had an integrated solution with a supplier, so we were looking to get rid of this kind of model. 

We knew that we needed to switch solutions because we were using very old Dell EMC hardware. It was painful, we had weekly drive failures. Every single week one of the key drives failed. It was old, it was out of support, we were losing support, we were paying for extended support, we knew that we had to have this solution. It was all spinning discs, there were a couple SSDs on there but for the most part, it was all spinning discs. We saw some major improvements.

We had not previously used an all flash array. We POC’d the next best competitor, but feature wise, overall system stability and space reduction numbers made it so that Pure was the clear leader.

Prior to this solution, our customer used Dell EMC, but there were several problems. They were not happy with it because of the performance of the array, and also the complexities around engaging the support teams. Their solution had also reached end-of-life, so they had to move to a new platform anyway. Ultimately, they wanted to move to something simpler than their existing platform, so they moved to Pure.

We switched because we were running out of support with 3PAR and they wouldn't renew our support unless we got a new array which was a lot of money. We had some of those SSD arrays, we didn't want to put all our eggs in one basket so we spread the vendors by having an SSD array from HPE and Pure. Once we solved the data reduction and what Pure does we were hooked. 

We were previously using EMC. The difference is unbelievable. We are buying more.

We have been using another solution, IBM XYZ. We plan to migrate away from the IBM system to Pure Storage. We are planning to switch because of cost and performance. Also, the Pure Storage FlashArray is an upgrade in technology. All-flash storage arrays will be the future.

Previously, we were on Dell EMC. We went with HyperFlex in a hyper-converged environment. We switched because we really wanted our SQL on SSD.

I have 19 years experience with Dell EMC products, and almost two years of experience with Pure Storage. The main difference between Dell EMC All Flash and Pure Storage FlashArray is that the Dell EMC product is building on a traditional architecture. You have more functionalities and more connecting possibilities with Dell EMC at this moment. Of course, Pure Storage FlashArray is on a quick road to closing the gap.

We moved off of VMAX storage. It wasn't keeping up with the workloads that we had. Pure has done this for us.

Previously, we used Oracle, Hitachi, and SAN storage. We switched because we needed storage that could be accessed and support our system very quickly.

We were previously using Dell EMC.

We have used 3PAR for VDI and NetApp for VSI. The new solution has a very low price/performance ratio. With the price of the SSD upgrade of our NetApp FA3220 and the one year maintenance of the old 3PAR, we bought Pure Storage with a three-year support agreement.

The technology the company had were from two competing vendors, but none had flash storage. This was the first time the company ever used flash storage.

We need the encryption at REST. That is why they wanted this solution.

At the time we were evaluating a whole bunch of different solution platforms, and a lot of times it came down to use case, workload, and cost. 

We are using this solution in conjunction with EMC. We might still be using both for different workloads. 

Our previous solution was slow. We ran into a lot of I/O bottlenecks. I had wanted to get Pure into our environment for a few years. They lowered the price to the point that the price-to-performance fit our budget.

We were previously on legacy storage systems. After moving to Pure Storage, our stability and performance both drastically improved.

We switched because we had a lot of issues with our previous storage solution. 

Yes, the cost of the previous product (fibre channel array) versus the cost of an all flash array differs drastically. We were pleasantly surprised that we received fibre channel pricing for an all flash array.

We previously used XtremIO. We knew we needed to switch because of the trends in the industry. It's always going be a battle for consumer-based demands. Consumers are always going to demand more, and more; now. What that means is that you need to build apps that are quicker, faster; or have a more sleek run without as much code, or they're more highly available. That's what it really comes down to.

The technology that we had was outdated. We were using HPE SAN.

We use NetApp because of the variety of protocols it can support.

In the past, we had Lenovo. With the Pure Storage, it improved and simplified our connections.

Before working with Pure Storage, we were working with an SP and multi-tier solution. Most of our customers were looking for performance. So, we made the choice to have an all-flash platform with replication. At the time, Pure Storage was the only one to be able to provide some all-flash storage with replication, and replication was mandatory for our customers.

I was using a Sun Microsystems product. Basically, the Sun Microsystems product is nothing but Hitachi Storage. They buy Hitachi Storage and label it as Sun Microsystems.

We knew we needed to switch because the older solution we were using was at its end of life.