We performed a comparison between Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System and Pure Storage FlashArray based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"It is always out of the box, and ready to use."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are management and administration user-friendliness, provisioning, and performance."
"The solution has probably reduced my power use substantially."
"It worked flawlessly."
"The most valuable feature is its data reduction."
"The tool is simple and easy to use. It has neat features like protection from device removal. Moreover, you can undo the deletes. The solution is easy to work with and not as complicated as CAC"
"Having fast storage allows actual servers to perform in high capacity so we don't have slowdowns on our applications."
"The most valuable feature of the Pure Storage Flash Array is the blazing fast monitoring."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"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."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"It has to be flexible according to the customer's requirements. It has to be aligned with the customer business and the business environment."
"We would like to see more cloud support, which we know is coming, although it's not out yet. It's going to be released in the next versions. That would be the biggest win, if additional cloud support is built into the array."
"I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good."
"I would like to have an easy way to determine the cost per VM so that I can present a solution to our customers."
"When we were doing some tests, we found that there was an I/O freeze when they were switching the controller."
"The solution is not cheap."
"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."
"In the next release of this solution, we would like to see automated copy data management for SQL Server."
"Most of our upgrades have not been as smooth as they should have been."
Earn 20 points
Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is ranked 35th in All-Flash Storage while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews. Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is rated 8.0, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System writes "Has a fantastic feature-set and works well with workflow solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is most compared with , whereas Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and VMware vSAN.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
