* Posts by purestorage

3 posts • joined 17 Jul 2013

Don't you forget about VCE... Cisco gets cosy with Pure Storage


Hi all - Matt @ Pure here (Disclaimer: I lead PM/Marketing at Pure).

I think it would be a mistake to read today’s announcement as any form of wavering support from Cisco in any of their Converged Infrastructure partners (EMC/VCE, NetApp, IBM, etc.) or their internal flash technologies (Invicta) as this article questions.

Cisco UCS has become a juggernaut in the data center. If one wants to maintain and expand one's juggernaut status, delivering great integration and converged solutions with EVERY major storage and flash vendor seems like a solid strategy to me.

And in case it wasn’t clear, FlashStack is a Pure program, supported by our partners VMware and Cisco. You’ll see us expand FlashStack to cover other technologies and partners over time.

Military strategy game? Nope, these 'battle cards' are an EMC sales tool


Re: Active/Passive

Hi, Matt at Pure here.

Our arrays are A/A from the front-end IO handling perspective (you can round-robin IO across all ports on all controllers, and all LUNs are available on all ports of all controllers), but from a back-end IO handling perspective they are A/P. This was a design choice, so that one controller is capable of handling the IO performance of the entire array, and enables us to perform non-disruptive upgrades without availability or performance loss. Scale-out arrays which leverage A/A controllers suffer a 1/N performance loss when a controller is lost (in a cluster of N controllers). For a 8-controller (4 Brick) deployment that might only be 1/8, but for a common single-brick deployment (2 controllers), that's a 1/2 performance loss.

We encourage rigorous HA testing as part of every PoC. Get 'em in, pull the cables, and see what happens to performance in all failure scenarios. Pull the complete power to the array and see how fast it comes up. There are real differences between the vendor products in HA.

Big boy Fujitsu crushes stroppy upstarts in storage boffins' trials


Why doesn't Pure Storage publish a SPC benchmark?

Hi Chris,

Unfortunately, we're not allowed to publish SPC benchmarks. The SPC benchmark doesn't allow results run on storage arrays that feature deduplication, and in our product, the Pure Storage FlashArray, deduplication and compression can't be turned off (a good thing! we dedupe/compress at such high performance there's no reason to disable it). Given that deduplication is rapidly becoming a standard base feature of modern all-flash storage devices, SPC risks becoming a benchmark of the passing disk era. In fairness, the SPC folks are reportedly working on this, so we look forward to testing SPC when/if it is ever enabled for deduplication.

Unwittingly, SPC is becoming one of the best flash marketing organizations. They are showcasing the ridiculous cost and extent one has to go through to deliver performance with disk (in the case of the recent benchmark you highlight, an array that costs $1.27M, is $5.60/GB raw and $17.85/GB usable, and delivers only around 70 usable TBs in 3 full cabinets!).

Most storage architects in this day and age have realized if you are buying storage for performance, all-flash storage is the obvious choice. Pure Storage has focused on making all-flash storage not only fast, but affordable for a majority of data center workloads (databases, VMs, VDI).


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021