We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashBlade and Tintri VMstore T7000 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"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."
"The latency is good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"The solution is scalable."
"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."
"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."
"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features."
"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."
"The product is scalable and easy to expand."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"The management dashboards keep improving and allow for quick and easy tracing of issues."
"It’s very good at IOPS."
"A very good support team that is available 24/7. They have real technical staff with strong knowledge."
"We also find the detail per-vm reporting at the ability to see reports from the hypervisor straight back to the storage useful."
"Support from our vendor and Tintri are brilliant. They have always answered all of our questions promptly."
"I've worked on both EMC and NetApp SANs, and this is by far the easiest system to maintain"
"Its VM-aware features have been excellent to use and integrate with XenServer as well."
"Among the most valuable features are its granular replication, the ability to define asynchronous or synchronous replication, which gives us very definable RTOs and RPOs around that type of service, and granular quality-of-service configuration, which allows for cases where you've got multiple customers on a single Tintri, but you want to be able to offer strong quality-of-service metrics and KPIs."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"The software layer has to improve."
"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 tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge."
"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."
"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."
"I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."
"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."
"Speed of our VDI machines. We have a very high log in and log out ratio and machines are being refreshed instantly so we have a constant boot storm on our storage."
"The Tintri Analytics site is excellent for long-term trending, but more data would be great."
"Active/active cluster between two Tintris on Hyper-V cluster."
"I would like it to have the ability to store data other than virtual machines. At the moment, you can only connect VMs to it, and that’s a bit disappointing."
"We need more options to integrate with cloud storage options other than the current AWS and IBM that it currently supports."
"Their current replication is really just enough to "check the box" that they do replication. We'll probably implement Actifio, Zerto or EMC RecoverPoint for VMs for more critical data replication."
"Tintri need to be able to innovate faster but maintain the quality of their features."
"It would be beneficial if Tintri could identify issues through telemetry and notify us before we need to contact them."
Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 31 reviews while Tintri VMstore T7000 is ranked 14th in All-Flash Storage with 61 reviews. Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8, while Tintri VMstore T7000 is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tintri VMstore T7000 writes "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Pure Storage FlashArray and Red Hat Ceph Storage, whereas Tintri VMstore T7000 is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell PowerStore, HPE Nimble Storage and VMware vSAN. See our Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Tintri VMstore T7000 report.
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.
