PURE FA-XR2-CNTRL-FC16 4-PORT UPG
Mfg # FA-XR2-CNTRL-FC16 4-PORT UPG
CDW # 5598708
Know your gear
Enhance your purchase
PURE FA-XR2-CNTRL-FC16 4-PORT UPG is rated
4.50 out of
5 by
2.
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Gokhan Dikmen from
A highly reliable solution that has run for over eight years without instability
What is our primary use case?
Pure Storage has a hybrid deployment, and customers can get Pure Storage on AWS or Azure.
What is most valuable?
Pure Storage created this technology of the NVMe. They have very good features. Pure Storage has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator. It's NTP protection. Also, if your customer doesn't care about the usable space and just wants space to put their data, Pure makes one to four applications, which could take 250 or 300 terabytes of space. The solution is fast and reliable and has good install-based referrals.
What needs improvement?
Given its price, Pure is not the first option. If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure.
Customers ask if there is Turkish language support, but Pure Storage doesn't have it. Only partners give support in Turkish, or customers need to speak in English. It would be good if Pure Storage could improve this.
For how long have I used the solution?
I've been in this sector for 28 years, and I've worked with Veeam for two or three years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I have one client who installed Pure Storage almost eight years ago. During the eight years, there have been no problems such as hardware failure or stopping.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe's scalability a nine out of ten.
How are customer service and support?
Pure has good storage, but they don't have Turkish language support.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup is very easy. Recently, they made an upgrade, a live system working on a bank, which is a non-interruption upgrade from one service to another one. The upgrade was very useful and easy to do. We didn't need to stop anything. The maintenance and the updates are very easy.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Pure Storage is better than IBM, Dell, and other solutions because it makes a good application and keeps its promise. Pure Storage has stability and works very fast. They keep their promise for what they build. For example, if they promise one to four with an application, they do that. Even if they can't do that, they put in an extra hard drive to keep their promise, and it's a free hard drive. The most important position of Pure depends on whether you are talking about net space or the use space.
Of course, Dell and IBM have good solutions, but that depends on what storage level we are talking about, such as SIP or NAS.
If the customer needs a certain size, say about 500 terabytes of usable space, Pure is not a good solution because it will be expensive. IBM could be a better choice.
What other advice do I have?
I rate Pure FlashArray X NVMe a nine out of ten.
Pure might be better than other products could be. But in some projects, IBM is better for the customer. However, I must understand what the customer needs. I am not saying that Pure is the best, but In some projects, I prefer to go with Dell, HP, or IBM. I need to understand the customer needs and budget before comparing them. Pure has better technology right now, but if the customer has a small budget and if we are just talking about the use space or the net space, Pure doesn't work.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Hybrid Cloud
Disclaimer: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:Partner
Date published: 2023-11-03T00:00:00-04:00
Rated 5 out of
5 by
Bharathi Raja from
Efficient support and a straightforward setup with room for growth in smaller organizations
What is our primary use case?
There are so many applications on devices. Those are part of my job and a few others as well.
How has it helped my organization?
I find it more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses, not for the enterprise.
What is most valuable?
I appreciate the performance. The support service is nice.
What needs improvement?
After implementation, there are limitations, such as the number of paths, file systems, and replication options. It feels more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses rather than enterprises.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using the solution for two years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
There are some stability issues. I think I can provide some examples.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
The scalability issue is that the product team tends to increase the storage capacity.
How are customer service and support?
The support service is nice.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
We used Hitachi previously. Hitachi is more of an enterprise product, however, that was a management decision, not mine.
How was the initial setup?
Implementing the product involves setting up a few racks, which can be done quickly. That said, configuring firewall policies and similar tasks takes more time. The implementation itself should not take more than a day.
What about the implementation team?
I am an engineer, so I'm not the right person to ask about the implementation team.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
I am an engineer and am not aware of the setup cost.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We considered Apache and Hitachi.
What other advice do I have?
Choosing the right solution depends on customer requirements. I am an engineer, not a test guy.
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
Disclaimer: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:Partner
Date published: 2024-10-21T00:00:00-04:00