Accelerate 2026 - Part 2 - The Light Switch Test
Earlier, in Part 1, I wrote that the Everpure Accelerate 2026 opening keynote did not really feel like a storage keynote. My takeaway from day one was simple: Everyone wants your data. The bigger question is who owns the context. Day two answered a different question. If day one was about why the Enterprise Data Cloud matters, day two was about how customers are supposed to get there without turning it into another giant transformation project that sounds great on stage or in a boardroom and then dies somewhere between budget approval, staffing constraints, internal politics, and the next urgent outage. That is why the second keynote mattered. It was not trying to restart the vision. The vision had already been established. It was about turning that vision into something customers could actually use: a methodology, a blueprint, and a way to connect data architecture to risk reduction, efficiency, agility, modernization, and business outcomes. And then John Colgrove, Coz, did what Coz does. He simplified the whole thing. Not by making it smaller. By making it clearer. The phrase that stayed with me from his session was not a technical phrase. It was not Enterprise Data Cloud, Data Primacy, Fusion, data intelligence, or workload mobility, even though all of those ideas were underneath what he was saying. It was the light switch. Coz talked about walking into a room at home and turning on the light. You know exactly what is going to happen. It is simple. It is obvious. It works the way you expect it to work. Then he compared that to walking into a conference room at the office, where five people spend the first few minutes trying to figure out how to turn on the right lights, dim the screen area, wake up the display, connect the laptop, and make the audio work. Everyone has lived that moment. It is also a perfect way to explain what Everpure has been trying to do since the beginning. Make the complicated thing feel like the light switch. That may sound too simple for enterprise infrastructure, but I think it is exactly the point. The best infrastructure does not feel simple because the problem is simple. It feels simple because somebody did the hard engineering work to hide complexity without hiding control. That has always been part of the Everpure story. When Pure Storage first became known in the market, the message was not only flash performance. Performance mattered, of course. But the thing customers really felt was that the experience was different. The arrays were simpler. The upgrades were non-disruptive. The support model was different. Evergreen architecture was different. The idea that you could keep modernizing without the usual forklift pain was different. Over time, that simplicity moved from one array to more of the environment. Fusion extended the idea from a single system to a fleet. Policy, placement, automation, workload mobility, service levels, compliance, and lifecycle management started to move from device-by-device thinking toward something broader. Now, with the Enterprise Data Cloud, Everpure is trying to move that simplicity again. From array to fleet. From fleet to data. From data storage to data management. That was the thread both Nirav Sheth and Coz pulled through the keynote, and I think it connected day two back to day one in a very useful way. They made it clear that the move from Pure Storage to Everpure is not an abandonment of what got the company here. It is a continuation of the same journey. That matters because customers are rightfully skeptical when technology companies rebrand or expand their message. They wonder whether the company is moving away from the thing they trusted. They wonder whether the new story is strategy or just vocabulary. Coz addressed that directly. We are not abandoning storage infrastructure. We are going to keep building the best storage infrastructure we can. But we are also going higher, because to build better infrastructure, you have to understand more about the data above it. That is a founder’s version of the message. Less theater. More first principles. If you store data, you want to know what it is. You want to know how it will be accessed. You want to know how often. You want to know what it relates to. You want to know whether there are copies. You want to know whether those copies create risk. You want to know whether the rules are being followed. The problem, as Coz pointed out, is that nobody really knows the future. The infrastructure has to be built for agility. That word gets overused, but in this context it matters. Agility is the ability to change without breaking everything. It is the ability to move workloads non-disruptively. It is the ability to rebalance a fleet. It is the ability to modernize hardware without turning it into a migration event. It is the ability to adjust policies as risk changes. It is the ability to bring intelligence to data that already exists instead of forcing the business to start over. That is where the Enterprise Data Cloud story becomes more practical. And I personally think the Enterprise Data Cloud Success Blueprint was the clearest example of that. I liked this part because it moved the conversation away from “look at all these capabilities” and toward “here is why it matters to you” and “what outcomes are you trying to drive?” That is where a lot of technology conversations go wrong. We get excited about the architecture and forget that customers are not buying architecture for the sake of architecture. They are trying to solve business problems with limited people, limited time, limited budget, and increasing pressure from every direction. They are dealing with supply chain constraints. They are being asked to do more with the same team. They are trying to create VMware optionality without making a reckless move. They are modernizing applications while still running legacy workloads that cannot just disappear. They are dealing with cyber risk, ransomware, and minimum viable business recovery. They are being asked to support AI before the data foundation is ready. The blueprint framework organized those pressures into three simple categories: risk reduction, efficiency, and agility. That may seem obvious, but obvious is underrated. Risk reduction is not just a security feature. It is knowing whether your data is protected, whether your snapshot policies are aligned, whether you can recover the minimum viable business, whether sensitive data is duplicated everywhere, and whether compliance follows the data instead of living in someone’s spreadsheet. Efficiency is not just a density number. It is energy efficiency, automation, operational scale, fewer manual tasks, fewer migrations, and fewer people spending nights and weekends babysitting infrastructure that should be managing itself. Agility is not just modernization language. It is VMware optionality, container readiness, AI readiness, cloud flexibility, application mobility, and the freedom to make the next decision without being trapped by the last one. I think that is a much better way to have the conversation with customers. Not “Do you want this product?” But “Which business outcome are you trying to improve, and what is standing in the way?” The Red Hat and CSX discussion made that practical. When Eric Grabill from CSX talked about Positive Train Control, sensors along the tracks, safety requirements, and systems where a loss of data can affect train operations, the conversation moved from platform strategy into the real world. That is where infrastructure earns its keep. CSX has already moved a large portion of its applications to Kubernetes on OpenShift, but still has legacy VMs remaining. That is the real enterprise pattern. It is not containers or VMs. It is containers and VMs. It is cloud and on-premises. It is modern and legacy. It is AI coming next while everything else still has to run today. The Red Hat and Portworx conversation made the point that modernization cannot mean creating another disconnected stack. Customers need one operating model across VMs, containers, and eventually AI workloads. They need a practical transition path, not a big bang migration. They need data services that protect the applications, not just compute platforms that can host them. The St. Elizabeth Healthcare conversation made the same point in a more personal way. Charles Shepherd talked about joining St. Elizabeth in 1997, starting at the help desk, moving through Novell, GroupWise, backups, storage, and eventually becoming part of the team responsible for systems that support a healthcare environment that never really stops. What stayed with me was not only the technical story. It was the laptop on vacation. Anyone who has worked in infrastructure understands that detail. The laptop that comes with you just in case. The phone you keep checking because maybe something happened. The family event where part of your brain is still in the data center. The trip where you are physically present but operationally on standby. That is not a feature comparison. That is a life comparison. Charles said he recently was able to go to his niece’s graduation and not get called. That sounds small only if you have never been the person who always gets called. He also talked about more than one hundred hardware upgrades and more than one hundred fifty Purity upgrades without downtime. He talked about moving from older systems to modern ones without the traditional forklift migration pain. He talked about change boards becoming comfortable with upgrades during the day because the process had earned trust. That is the kind of customer proof that matters. It shows what the solution that was delivered gives back. It gives back time, trust and confidence. That connects directly to the light switch idea. Simplicity is not cosmetic. It is not just a better UI. It is not just fewer clicks. Simplicity changes what people can spend their time on. It changes what teams believe they can safely do. And it changes whether the infrastructure team is trapped maintaining the past or free to prepare for what comes next. Coz also said something important about time. This Enterprise Data Cloud journey is not a one-year story. It is not one product cycle. It is not done because it showed up in an Accelerate keynote. Coz described it as a journey that will take five to ten years, and even then, it will not really be done because the solution will keep improving. I appreciate that kind of honesty. So when a founder says this is a long journey, I believe that more than I believe a slide that says “seamless transformation” in large font. But I also think now is the right time for the journey to become possible. And Coz reminded us that the best version of this is not complexity with better branding. The best version is the light switch. Coz, in the most Coz way possible, reminded everyone that the goal is not to make enterprise infrastructure sound impressive. The goal is to make the hard things feel obvious. Like turning on the lights. I appreciate you reading. Dmitry Gorbatov © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereAccelerate 2026 - Part 1 - Everyone Wants Your Data
Back in February, I wrote that I had never been to Pure//Accelerate. This year, I still am not in Las Vegas. I watched the Everpure Accelerate 2026 opening keynote live from my home office, which turned out to be a different kind of vantage point. Not better than being there. Not worse. Just different. You do not get the hallway energy. You do not get the sponsor booths. You do not get the accidental conversations that happen while looking for coffee (or tea in my case). You do not get to read the room in the same way. You are not surrounded by the noise, the music, the badge lanyards, the customer reactions, or that strange conference feeling where everyone is tired and energized at the same time. A keynote viewed remotely has to work harder because the production does not carry you in the same way. If the speakers are just reading slides, you feel it immediately. If the story is thin, the distance makes it thinner. If the message is only a collection of announcements, you start checking email. But if the story is real, the distance does something interesting. It removes some of the theater. You are left with the words, the pacing, the ideas, and whether the people on stage actually believe what they are saying. This morning, the parts that landed with me were not the parts that felt the most polished. They were the parts where the keynote stopped sounding like a keynote and started sounding like people trying to explain a real shift in the industry. For me, the strongest moments came from Charlie Giancarlo, Chadd Kenney, Shawn Rosemarin, and the NVIDIA conversation. Not because they had the most slides. Not because they had the most numbers. They landed because they are storytellers. That matters more than we sometimes admit in enterprise technology. A slide reader can tell you what a product does. A storyteller can tell you why the product had to exist and why it matters to the customer or partner. There is a difference. And this morning, the difference mattered. Charlie’s most important line came early, and it changed the shape of the keynote. He said he was not going to talk about data storage. He was going to talk about data. For a storage company’s major customer event, that is not a small pivot. It would have been easy for Everpure to spend the morning celebrating the familiar things. Growth. Customer count. Market share. Flash leadership. Subscription run rate. Fusion adoption. Gartner recognition. Net Promoter Score. Performance numbers. Efficiency numbers. All of that was there, and all of that matters. But the real keynote was not about proving that Everpure is good at storage. The real keynote was about arguing that storage is no longer the highest-level conversation. Data is. That is where the rebrand from Pure Storage to Everpure starts to become more than a name change. A company called Pure Storage can be excellent at arrays, controllers, upgrades, density, performance, and simplicity. A company called Everpure has to earn the right to talk about the enterprise data cloud, and that is a much larger promise. It is also a much riskier promise. Because once you move north of storage, you are no longer talking only about where data lives. You are talking about who controls it, who understands it, who governs it, who protects it, and who gets to use it. That is where Charlie’s message became interesting. His argument was that the enterprise has spent decades living in an application-centric architecture. ERP had one version of the business. CRM had another. ServiceNow had another. HR systems had another. Analytics platforms copied data out of all of them. Data lakes were built to make sense of the mess. Now AI agents are being asked to reason across that same fragmented landscape. That is the problem. Not AI in theory. AI on top of fragmented truth. We have all seen some version of this. The definition of a customer changes depending on which system you ask. The data in one application does not quite match the data in another. A report is technically correct, but only according to one source. A copy was made for analytics, another for backup, another for a project, another for a data science team, and one more because someone needed it urgently two years ago and nobody knows if it is still being used. Now imagine asking an AI agent to act on that. That is where the phrase “Data Primacy” becomes more than keynote language. From what I understood this morning, Data Primacy is Everpure’s argument that data should no longer be trapped inside applications as a secondary object. The data itself, along with its context, relationships, governance, and sources of truth, has to become primary. Applications still matter. Workflows still matter. SaaS still matters. But the enterprise cannot keep allowing every application to define its own version of reality and then expect AI to make intelligent decisions across the pile. That is not sustainable. One of the strongest lines from Charlie was the idea that every vendor wants your data. Every SaaS vendor wants your data. Every analytics vendor wants your data. Every AI vendor wants your data. But what they really want is not just the data. They want the context. They want the meaning. They want to know how a customer in one system relates to a contract in another, a support case in another, an invoice in another, a shipment in another, a security policy in another, and a business outcome somewhere else entirely. In the AI era, context is the new land grab. That is the sentence I kept coming back to during the keynote. Everyone wants your data, but the bigger fight is over who owns the context. That is why this morning did not feel like just another AI infrastructure pitch. It felt like Everpure trying to move the conversation from managing arrays to managing truth. That is a big claim. It needs proof. And that is where Chadd Kenney’s part of the keynote mattered. Chadd is one of those speakers who can make infrastructure feel like an actual story instead of a list of capabilities. That is not easy. Storage features can get very technical very quickly, and if you are not careful, everything turns into a blur of replication, snapshots, policies, performance, controllers, and acronyms. But Chadd framed the platform in a way that made sense. First, the unified data plane stores the data. Then the intelligent control plane governs and operates it. Then the universal data intelligence layer helps understand it. Together, those pieces create a different operating model. That phrase, operating model, is important. Because the most interesting part of the demo was not just that Fusion can automate tasks. It was that Everpure is trying to change the relationship between people and infrastructure. The old world asks humans to be perfect by hand. Log into this array. Check that policy. Fix that snapshot setting. Compare it to the spreadsheet. Make sure the production workloads are covered. Exclude dev and test. Check compliance. Update the retention period. Open the change. Wait for the window. Hope nobody missed one. We have normalized that kind of work for years. Then we call it operational discipline. Sometimes it is. But sometimes it is just human beings being forced to compensate for systems that do not understand intent. The Fusion demos showed something better. Define the policy once. Attach intent to the workload. Let the control plane detect drift. Let it show violations. Let it recommend a fix. In some cases, let it act. In other cases, keep the human in the loop, but stop making the human do repetitive work that the platform should be able to understand. The ransomware snapshot example was a perfect illustration. A customer mandate changes retention from fifteen days to thirty days. In many environments, that becomes a manual chase across infrastructure. In the keynote demo, it became a policy problem, a compliance view, a remediation path, and an audit trail. That is what infrastructure teams actually need. Not another dashboard that tells them something is broken. A system that understands what “correct” looks like and helps keep the environment there. The workload mobility demo made the same point from a performance angle. If the platform can see that a workload is trending toward a service level violation, recommend a better placement, validate the move, and relocate that workload without the application owner noticing, that is not just automation. That is infrastructure keeping a promise quietly. And quiet matters. The best infrastructure usually disappears. Nobody sends a thank-you note because latency did not spike. Nobody opens a champagne bottle because a replication policy worked. Nobody celebrates the outage that did not happen. But those invisible wins are the difference between a team that spends its life firefighting and a team that gets to work on the next thing. That is why the Active Cluster for File demo also worked. Synchronous replication for file sounds technical, and it is. But the emotional value is simple. When something fails, the business does not want a heroic recovery story. It wants no story at all. The workload quietly packed its bags and moved. That line stayed with me because disaster recovery should be boring. Boring is the goal. Boring means the policy worked, the automation worked, the architecture worked, and the humans did not have to assemble on a bridge call at 2 a.m. to save the day. Then Shawn Rosemarin took the keynote into the AI conversation, and again, the strength was in the framing. The bottleneck stalling AI is not compute. It is not models. It is not tooling. It is data. That is the part of the AI conversation that I think many customers are starting to feel more clearly. For the last few years, the market has been obsessed with models and GPUs. That made sense. There was a lot to understand, and the infrastructure requirements are real. But most customers are not trying to build the next frontier model. They are trying to unlock the intelligence that already exists inside their own business. Their documents. Their contracts. Their transactions. Their support history. Their clinical records. Their policies. Their engineering files. Their internal knowledge. Their institutional memory. That does not become useful just because someone points a model at it. It becomes useful when the data is prepared, classified, curated, governed, indexed, vectorized, and delivered with the right context at the right time. That is why the Everpure Data Stream announcement with NVIDIA mattered. The message was not simply, “We can feed GPUs fast,” although performance absolutely matters. The more important message was that enterprise AI needs a way to make data AI-ready without creating another silo, another copy, another stale version of the truth. Shawn made the point clearly: other vendors want you to copy your data into their system. But a copy is always behind. That is such a simple sentence, but it carries a lot of weight. A copy has to be protected. A copy has to be governed. A copy has to be reconciled. A copy has to be secured. A copy can drift. If AI is going to answer questions, automate workflows, make recommendations, or support decisions, stale context is not just inefficient. It is dangerous. That is where the NVIDIA conversation added credibility. The point was not just that Everpure has a partner logo on a slide. The point was that AI has become a full-stack infrastructure problem. Data has to move efficiently. GPUs cannot sit idle waiting for bytes. Inference needs low latency and quick access to the right information. Agents need context. Networking matters. Storage matters. Hardware matters again. I liked the line about hardware being cool again. I liked it because it is funny, but also because it is true. For years, parts of the industry talked as if infrastructure had become invisible. Cloud abstracted it. SaaS hid it. Software ate the world, and many people acted as if the physical layer was someone else’s problem. AI ended that illusion. When customers are investing serious money in GPUs and trying to build real AI capability, storage is not a commodity. Networking is not plumbing. Metadata performance is not trivia. Power is not someone else’s concern. Operational excellence is not optional. The physical world is back in the strategy conversation. Maybe it never left. Maybe some people just stopped looking. That is why the keynote worked for me, even from my home office. Not because every demo was relevant to every customer. Not because every phrase was perfect. Not because I think one keynote answers every question. That is what the next two days are for. It worked because the best speakers were not just announcing things. They were connecting the dots. Charlie explained why the application-centric model is running out of room. Chadd showed what it looks like when infrastructure starts operating from intent instead of manual heroics. Shawn connected AI success back to data readiness instead of model worship. The NVIDIA conversation reminded everyone that AI is not magic. It is infrastructure, data movement, context, governance, and execution. That is a story. And in enterprise technology, the story matters because customers are not just buying features. They are buying a way out of the mess they are already in. The mess is fragmentation. AI did not create that mess, but AI is making it impossible to ignore. That may be the real takeaway from day one of Accelerate. The AI era is forcing enterprises to confront the data architecture choices they have been living with for decades. The old model was manageable when humans were the ones reconciling the gaps. It becomes much more dangerous when agents begin acting on top of those gaps at machine speed. That is why Everpure’s move toward Data Primacy is worth paying attention to. It is not just a product direction. It is a point of view. The application should not own the truth. The copy should not become the truth. The dashboard should not pretend to be the truth. The enterprise needs to own its data, understand its context, govern its use, and make it available to applications, analytics, and AI in a way that is coherent and trustworthy. That is easy to say and very hard to do. But this morning, for the first time, I felt the full shape of what Everpure is trying to become after the rebrand. Not just a storage company with a new name. Not just a platform company using AI language because everyone has to. But a company trying to move the enterprise conversation north of storage and into the question that will define the next decade: Who owns the context of your business? Because everyone wants your data. The companies that win will be the ones that know what it means. I appreciate you reading. Dmitry Gorbatov © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashere
The Lost Art of Sizing
Introduction — Why This Series Exists Technology has gone through one of the most extraordinary economic transformations in modern history. For over four decades, the industry benefited from continuously cheaper computing resources, exponentially faster processors, collapsing storage costs, and an almost limitless ability to scale systems through virtualization and cloud computing. During that time, many of the operational disciplines that once defined great engineering slowly faded into the background. Precise sizing, deep performance analysis, workload modeling, and resource optimization became less visible as organizations increasingly relied on abundant infrastructure to compensate for inefficiencies. But the economics are changing. Today we are entering an era defined by: exploding GPU costs massive AI infrastructure investments rising power consumption thermal and density limitations increasingly expensive semiconductor fabrication and cloud bills that are exposing years of architectural inefficiency As these pressures grow, the industry is rediscovering something earlier generations of technologists already understood: Efficiency matters. And ultimately: Sizing matters. This blog series is intended to explore both the history and the future of performance engineering, capacity planning, and system sizing. The first blog — this one — focuses on how the industry arrived where it is today: the Scarcity Era of computing the transition into abundance the rise of cloud abstraction and the re-emergence of constraints in the modern AI era Future blogs will move from theory and history into practical engineering. They will examine modern system architectures and explore the many bottlenecks that organizations often overlook, including: CPU saturation memory pressure NUMA effects storage latency queue depth issues network bottlenecks virtualization overhead cloud inefficiencies database scaling challenges and workload contention patterns The series will also discuss methods for properly monitoring, modeling, tuning, and sizing these environments. Because the scope of the subject is so large, future entries will likely be broken into multiple specialized blogs by technology area. Some topics may themselves require multi-part deep dives. About the Author I started my career in technology in 1978 working on a Basic Four-computer system during the early years of enterprise computing. Over the decades, I have worked across operations, engineering, architecture, product management, database performance tuning, and large-scale infrastructure analysis. I have architected sizing and performance analysis tools for technology vendors, worked internationally on database and infrastructure performance engagements, and spent much of my career focused on understanding how systems behave under real-world workloads. My background includes extensive work with Oracle technologies, enterprise performance tuning, workload analysis, and capacity planning across multiple industries and platforms. Today, I am employed at Everpure as a Field Solution Architect specializing in Oracle technologies and performance engineering. Having worked through the mainframe era, distributed systems revolution, virtualization, cloud computing, and now the rise of AI infrastructure, I believe the industry is once again approaching a point where operational discipline, efficiency, and proper sizing will become critical engineering skills. This series is both a technical discussion and a historical perspective from someone who has watched these cycles evolve over nearly five decades. The Lost Art of Sizing Part I — The Scarcity Era In the late 1970s, I started my career in technology. My first roles were in operations, running jobs on mainframes overnight and performing backups. Over time, I moved throughout the IT organization before eventually transitioning into engineering and product management in the late 1980s. I often refer to the 1970s and early 1980s as The Scarcity Era of computing. During that time, computing resources were extraordinarily expensive: Storage could cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars per gigabyte Memory was frequently measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per megabyte CPU performance was discussed in terms of MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second), with systems delivering only a handful of MIPS costing millions of dollars Every component in the system represented a major financial investment. Because resources were scarce and expensive, sizing was treated almost as a science. Capacity planning was not optional — it was foundational to the survival of the business. Over-sizing a system could waste enormous capital. Under-sizing it could bring critical business operations to a halt. Every byte mattered. Every CPU cycle mattered. Every disk spindle mattered. This environment created a culture of discipline: Applications were optimized aggressively Developers understood resource constraints Operations teams monitored utilization closely Architects carefully modeled workloads Performance engineering was considered a core technical skill In many organizations, some of the best engineers were the people who could make systems smaller, faster, and more efficient. Software engineering was deeply connected to hardware realities. You could not simply “add more servers.” There often were no additional servers to add. This scarcity shaped an entire generation of technologists. Part II — The Abundance Era Then something extraordinary happened. Beginning in the late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s, the economics of computing changed completely. Moore’s Law, semiconductor scaling, manufacturing efficiencies, and global supply chains created an era of unprecedented abundance. For nearly forty years: CPUs became exponentially faster Memory became dramatically cheaper Storage costs collapsed Networks became faster Virtualization increased utilization Cloud computing made infrastructure appear almost limitless For the first time in computing history, performance improvements arrived faster than software inefficiencies could consume them. This fundamentally changed engineering culture. Disciplines that had once been mandatory slowly became optional. Applications no longer had to be highly optimized because hardware improvements continuously masked inefficiencies. Instead of tuning software, organizations increasingly solved problems by purchasing more infrastructure. A new mindset emerged: Hardware is cheaper than engineering time. And for many years, that was largely true. The rise of virtualization and cloud computing accelerated this transition even further. Infrastructure became abstracted from the engineers writing the software. Developers no longer saw physical systems, disk arrays, or memory limitations. Resources became API calls and provisioning scripts. Eventually, many organizations evolved toward a model where applications were simply “thrown over the wall” into the cloud. If performance was poor: allocate more CPUs add more memory scale horizontally increase cloud spending The business unit would absorb the cost. The direct connection between engineering decisions and infrastructure economics became increasingly invisible. In many environments: poor code was tolerated inefficient queries were normalized oversized containers became standard massive memory consumption was accepted idle cloud resources accumulated unchecked Traditional sizing disciplines faded because the financial pain was no longer immediate or visible to the engineering teams creating the workloads. The cloud did not eliminate capacity planning — it merely changed who paid for bad sizing decisions. In the mainframe era, poor sizing decisions were catastrophic because hardware was scarce. In the cloud era, poor sizing decisions became operational expenditures hidden inside monthly invoices. The result was a generation of systems that often consumed vastly more resources than their actual business function required. Ironically, many of the operational disciplines developed during the Scarcity Era were not technically obsolete — they had simply become economically unnecessary for a time. But that may now be changing again. Part III — The Return of Constraints For nearly four decades, the technology industry operated under a powerful assumption: Tomorrow’s hardware would solve today’s software problems. For a long time, that assumption held true. If an application consumed too much CPU: processors became faster If memory usage grew: RAM became cheaper If storage exploded: disk costs continued collapsing If workloads increased: cloud platforms scaled almost infinitely The economics of computing continuously compensated for inefficient engineering. But today, something significant is changing. The industry is beginning to encounter limits again. Not theoretical limits — real economic, physical, and operational limits. Modern computing infrastructure is no longer getting dramatically cheaper at the rate it once did. Instead, we are seeing: exploding GPU costs rising power consumption thermal limitations expensive high-bandwidth memory enormous cloud infrastructure bills increasingly expensive semiconductor fabrication AI workloads consuming unprecedented resources For the first time in decades, inefficient software design is becoming economically visible again. And this has exposed a reality that many organizations had quietly ignored for years: poor code oversized architectures inefficient databases excessive abstraction layers uncontrolled cloud sprawl wasteful microservice designs badly tuned queries overallocated Kubernetes clusters massive idle infrastructure footprints For years, these inefficiencies were masked by cheap hardware and elastic cloud scaling. Now they are appearing directly on financial statements. The cloud did not eliminate waste. It made waste easier to hide. Until the bills became too large to ignore. At the same time, another challenge has emerged. Many of the people who developed the operational disciplines of the Scarcity Era are no longer in the industry. They have: retired moved into leadership transitioned into consulting or left technology entirely The generation that deeply understood: workload modeling performance engineering memory optimization queue management efficient batch processing storage layout capacity forecasting low-level tuning is steadily disappearing. Much of that knowledge was never fully documented because it was simply considered part of being an experienced engineer. As a result, many younger organizations grew up in an environment where: infrastructure felt unlimited optimization seemed unnecessary cloud scaling replaced careful design operational cost was someone else’s problem Now the industry faces a difficult transition. The old constraints are returning, but many of the disciplines required to manage those constraints have faded. In many ways, the industry is rediscovering something that earlier generations of technologists already understood: Resources are never truly infinite. Eventually: power matters memory matters storage matters latency matters thermal density matters architecture matters And ultimately: sizing matters. The art of sizing has returned. Not because technology stopped advancing, but because economics, physics, and scale have once again forced the industry to confront efficiency. What was once viewed as an outdated operational skill may soon become one of the most important engineering disciplines again. Part IV — History Does Not Repeat, But It Rhymes What we are seeing today in technology is historically unusual — but it is not entirely unprecedented. Other industries have gone through similar transitions where periods of explosive advancement, falling costs, and seemingly limitless growth eventually collided with economic and physical realities. The railroad industry is one example. In the early days of rail expansion during the Industrial Age, railroads transformed economies. Expansion happened rapidly. Costs initially fell as infrastructure scaled, routes expanded, and technology improved. For a time, railroads represented nearly unlimited economic optimism. But eventually the easy growth ended. The cost of expanding and maintaining rail infrastructure began rising dramatically. Marginal improvements became more expensive. Complexity increased. Maintenance became a larger percentage of operating cost. Competition intensified. Returns diminished. The industry did not disappear. In fact, railroads remained enormously valuable to the economy. But the economics changed. The same pattern appeared in other industrial and technological revolutions: aviation after the jet age nuclear power generation telecommunications infrastructure automobile manufacturing even electrical grid expansion Early stages were driven by rapid gains and falling relative costs. Later stages became dominated by: scale complexity infrastructure costs power requirements operational efficiency regulation and diminishing economic returns on incremental improvements Technology did not stop advancing. It simply became harder, more expensive, and more complex to continue advancing at the same pace. That is increasingly where modern computing appears to be heading. We are now entering the Age of AI. AI will absolutely create enormous value. In many ways, it already has. But there is growing evidence that the economics of this era are going to be very different from the cloud and consumer internet revolutions that preceded it. AI infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive: massive GPU clusters enormous power consumption advanced cooling systems high-bandwidth memory increasingly expensive semiconductor fabrication global supply chain dependencies For years, the technology industry operated almost like a perpetual motion machine where computing became continuously cheaper while performance improved exponentially. Today, the relationship between cost and performance is changing. That does not mean AI is a failure. Far from it. But technological revolutions are not light switches. They are transitions. And transitions are messy. Industries often overspend before they stabilize. Architectures evolve through trial and error. Infrastructure expands ahead of efficient utilization. Economic models mature slowly. The railroad era experienced this. The electrical age experienced this. The internet boom experienced this. And now AI appears to be entering a similar phase. The challenge for the next generation of technologists will not simply be building larger systems. It will be learning how to build efficient, economically sustainable systems again. Which may ultimately bring the industry back to a lesson many believed had become obsolete: The art of sizing never really disappeared. It was merely waiting for constraints to return.Part 2: MCP Is Interesting. Everpure Fusion Makes It Useful.
In Part 1, I tried to give MCP a proper “…splanation,” mostly because the first several times I heard people talking about Model Context Protocol, I had the same look Joey had in Friends when the salesman asked him if his friends ever had a conversation and he just nodded along without really knowing what they were talking about. That was me. MCP this. MCP server that. Agentic AI. Tool calling. Context windows. Protocols. Hosts. Clients. Servers. At some point, I realized I was nodding with the confidence of a man who had understood approximately 41% of the conversation and was hoping nobody asked a follow-up question. The simple version is this: MCP is a standard way for AI applications to connect to tools and data. It is not the AI model itself. It is not the magic brain. It is the plumbing that lets the AI reach into approved systems, ask better questions, retrieve useful context, and potentially take action through well-defined tools. That is important in the abstract. But for Everpure customers and prospects, it becomes much more interesting when we stop talking about MCP as a general AI concept and start talking about what it could mean for storage operations, data infrastructure, and Everpure Fusion. Because this is where the conversation moves from “AI is coming someday” to “your infrastructure may already need to be ready for how AI will interact with it.” Everpure recently published a blog with a sneak peek of the Everpure Fusion MCP Server, describing it as an open-source service that connects AI assistants to Everpure Fusion storage fleets through the Model Context Protocol. The important part is not simply that an AI assistant can talk to storage. That would be interesting, but it would also be easy to misunderstand. The important part is that the assistant can interact with the storage environment through the Fusion control plane, which already understands fleet-wide context across FlashArray and FlashBlade. That distinction matters. Without Fusion, many environments are still managed in a way that looks very familiar to anyone who has spent time supporting infrastructure. One array over here. Another array over there. Scripts in one folder. Notes in another. Naming standards that started strong and then apparently met reality. Screenshots in tickets. Tribal knowledge in the heads of a few people who somehow remember which workload lives where, which array is doing what, and why nobody should touch that one volume because “there was a reason,” even if nobody is entirely sure what the reason was anymore. That model may work, but it does not scale gracefully. More importantly, it is not especially friendly to automation, and it is definitely not ideal for AI-assisted operations. Most troubleshooting in mature environments is not hard because people lack tools. It is hard because the context is not immediately obvious. The storage admin has one view. The DBA has another view. The virtualization team has another view. The application owner has a completely different view, usually delivered through a ticket that says something deeply scientific like “the app feels slow.” Everyone may be looking at a valid piece of the puzzle, but the real work is in the correlation. Which volume maps to which workload? Which array is hosting it? What did latency look like during the reported window? Were IOPS elevated? Was bandwidth constrained? Did anything change recently? Are we looking at a storage issue, a database issue, an application issue, a noisy neighbor, a misconfigured VM, a bad query, or just another case of “the network is innocent until proven guilty, but still somehow looks suspicious standing there”? That is where Fusion and MCP together become compelling. The Everpure Fusion MCP example makes the idea real. Instead of forcing an administrator to manually build low-level REST API calls or jump between tools, the MCP-aware AI assistant can query Fusion through higher-level tools exposed by the MCP server. In the example Everpure blog described, a storage admin can ask about workloads and volumes supporting a production SQL environment, including arrays, IOPS, latency, and bandwidth over a recent time window. The assistant can then correlate that storage perspective with information from another MCP server, such as SQL Server context around database files, wait types, and query behavior. That does not mean the AI replaces the storage admin. It does not mean the AI replaces the DBA. It does not mean everyone goes to lunch while the robot fixes production. And this is where I need to bring in The Big Bang Theory again, because apparently this is who I am now. There is a scene in the show where Raj is very open to the idea of aliens and extraterrestrial life. At the planetarium, Raj can look at flashes of light in the sky and talk about how scientists cannot fully rule out the possibility of alien civilizations. It is funny because Raj is a scientist, but he is also Raj, so the line between rigorous possibility and “maybe the aliens are waving at us” gets wonderfully blurry. That is how some people talk about AI operations right now. A light flashes in the sky, and suddenly someone is ready to announce that the robots are here to run the data center. Let’s not do that. The point is not that the AI is an alien civilization arriving to take over infrastructure operations. The point is that the interface is changing. The way humans interact with infrastructure is starting to move from manual lookup, command execution, and tribal knowledge toward assisted reasoning, guided action, and cross-system correlation. That is much more practical than aliens. It is also much more useful. Fusion already gives customers a fleet-wide control plane. It gives you the ability to think above individual arrays, above one-off configuration, and above the old habit of managing infrastructure like every system is its own little island with its own weather pattern. MCP gives that control plane another interface, one designed for the way AI agents work. This is why Fusion adoption matters. If your environment is still managed mostly array by array, script by script, ticket by ticket, and screenshot by screenshot, then AI can only help so much. It may summarize the pain beautifully, but it is still summarizing pain. When you use Fusion to create a more consistent, policy-driven, fleet-aware operating model, you are not just modernizing storage management. You are making the environment more understandable to automation, to operations teams, and now to AI agents that need structured context in order to be useful. That is a very different conversation from “look, the AI can query storage.” The better conversation is this: if AI is going to become part of operational workflows, then your infrastructure needs to be ready to participate in those workflows. Fusion is one of the ways you prepare for that. Not someday. Now. And Fusion is not the only example of this direction. Another Everpure technical article shows how an MCP server can be built to integrate with FlashBlade, allowing an AI assistant to query system data and even take direct actions through a natural-language interface. That example is useful because it shows the bridge between the old world and the new one. In the old world, storage management often meant CLI commands, scripts, API calls, screenshots, and specialized knowledge living in the heads of a few very tired people. In the new world, those capabilities can be surfaced through an AI-assisted experience that understands the available tools and can help operators ask better questions in plain English. Again, that does not mean the AI should blindly run your infrastructure while everyone disappears. Please do not read this article and tell your change advisory board that “the blog guy said the robot can handle it.” That is not the point, and I would like to remain welcome in polite infrastructure society. The point is that the operational model is changing. For years, we have talked about automation in infrastructure, but a lot of what we called automation still required a human to know exactly what to automate, where to look, which command to run, which script was safe, which API endpoint mattered, and which piece of documentation had not quietly aged into fiction. AI-assisted operations changes the interaction pattern. Instead of always beginning with the operator knowing the exact command or API call, the operator can begin with the question. Why did this workload slow down? Which volumes support this application? What changed in the last four hours? Which arrays are carrying the highest latency? Which workloads are consuming the most bandwidth? Which policies are inconsistent across the fleet? Where do we have capacity pressure? Which storage objects are tied to this SQL environment? Those are the kinds of questions humans actually ask when something is happening. MCP gives AI assistants a standard way to ask approved systems for the data behind those questions. Fusion gives the storage estate a more consistent, policy-aware, fleet-level way to answer. That combination is where the opportunity lives. Now, because this is enterprise technology and not a children’s book, we also need to talk about the dangerous part. One of the readers posted this comment on Linked in yesterday: The moment an AI system can access tools and data, the conversation changes. A chatbot that gives a bad answer is annoying. An agent that takes the wrong action in a business system can become a real incident. If a model can read sensitive files, query databases, send messages, modify records, trigger workflows, or touch infrastructure, then security is not a feature. Security is the premise. This is where some of the MCP enthusiasm needs adult supervision. We have spent years telling users not to click strange links, not to approve unknown applications, not to reuse passwords, and not to download random files. Now we are building systems where an AI assistant might read strange content, call external tools, and act on behalf of the user. That can be incredibly powerful, but only if we are honest about the risk. In some ways, MCP may expose organizational problems faster. If your data is scattered, stale, contradictory, or politically curated, an AI agent connected to it will not magically produce truth. It may simply produce a more polished version of the confusion. If your workflows are unclear, connecting AI to them may help automate the ambiguity, which is not quite the same thing as progress. The model can gather information, call tools, and complete steps, but people still need to define what should happen, what should not happen, what requires approval, and what good looks like. For Everpure customers and prospects, the more important question is not whether MCP is interesting. It is whether your environment is ready for this kind of interaction. That is where I would encourage customers to take a serious look at Fusion. Not because Fusion is another checkbox on a feature list, and not because every new technology conversation needs to end with someone saying “platform” three times into a mirror. Fusion matters because it changes the operational model. It gives you a way to manage data infrastructure as a fleet, with policy, consistency, automation, and context. Those are exactly the things AI agents need if they are going to do more than produce nicely formatted guesses. If you already met all the prerequisites (Purity 6.8.+, LDAP enabled), use it. Explore it. Get comfortable with it. Stop thinking about Fusion as something reserved for a future automation project after everyone finally gets through the current list of fires, renewals, upgrades, and meetings that should have been emails. MCP may be the plumbing that helps AI connect to the enterprise. Fusion helps make the storage environment worth connecting to. And that is the real call to action. Fusion is how Everpure customers make sure their data infrastructure is ready for it. Appreciate you reading. Dmitry Gorbatov © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereMCP, Joey Tribbiani, and the Moment AI Needed Plumbing - Part 1
People close to me know that I have a very annoying habit of memorizing, remembering, and using movie and TV show lines in normal conversation. I wish I could tell you this is a carefully curated personality trait, but it is probably closer to a long-running defect in the #dmitrywashere operating system. Some people remember birthdays. Some people remember where they parked. I remember a line from a sitcom episode that aired before half the people reading this had a LinkedIn profile. My two favorite sources are Friends and The Big Bang Theory, which probably says something about me that I am not emotionally prepared to unpack in public. There is a scene from Friends that has lived rent-free in my head for years, mostly because it captures something deeply human and mildly embarrassing. A salesman is talking to Joey and asks him a question that is both funny and a little too accurate: “Let me ask you one question. Do your friends ever have a conversation and you just nod along even though you’re not really sure what they’re talking about?” Joey, of course, immediately zones out. Not metaphorically. Not politely. He disappears into that wonderful Joey place where the mouth stays closed, the face stays agreeable, and the brain has clearly left the building. That was me the first few times I started hearing people talk about MCP. Not once. Not twice. Everywhere. MCP this. MCP server that. MCP is the future of agents. MCP is the USB-C of AI. MCP is how models connect to tools. MCP is the protocol that will make agentic AI real. MCP is the standard. MCP is the integration layer. MCP is the thing everyone apparently understood already, except somehow nobody had bothered to send me the memo. So I did what any responsible technology professional does in that situation. I nodded thoughtfully. The next thing I did was call my son, who is a Data Scientist, and ask him what MCP actually was. After listening to his explanation, I had the uncomfortable realization that he knew more about it than I did, which, naturally, did not feel great. That was just my ego talking, of course. He is way smarter than me. Then I went away and tried to figure out whether MCP was actually important or whether it was just another acronym that had wandered into the AI conversation wearing a conference badge. And that brings me to the other sitcom line that kept popping into my head while I was trying to explain this to myself. In The Big Bang Theory, there is a scene where a very drunk Penny says, “I think I owe you …splanation,” clearly attempting to say ‘explanation’ while her brain and mouth are no longer managed by a ‘unified control plane.’ That is exactly how MCP felt to me at first. I did not need another acronym. I needed a …splanation. A real one. Preferably in English. Preferably without requiring a PhD in distributed systems, three browser tabs of developer documentation, and someone on YouTube drawing boxes and arrows while saying “obviously” before explaining the least obvious thing I had heard all week. So this article is my attempt at that …splanation. After spending time researching MCP, I think it is important. More importantly, I think it is important in a very practical way. It is not the kind of important that requires everyone to become an AI researcher, read white papers at midnight, or pretend that “agentic workflow orchestration” is something normal people say at dinner. MCP matters because AI is moving from something that talks to something that can actually do work, and doing real work requires access to real systems. That is the part worth slowing down for. Most people first experienced modern AI as an LLM chat bot window. You typed something in, and the model responded. Sometimes the answer was impressive. Sometimes it was useful. Sometimes it was wrong with the confidence of a man giving directions in a city he has never visited. But the basic pattern was easy to understand. You asked a question. The LLM answered. That was the product experience. The problem is that most real work does not happen inside a blank chat box. Real work lives in messy places. It lives in documents, calendars, databases, code repositories, CRM systems, ticketing tools, emails, Slack messages, service logs, storage platforms, cloud consoles, spreadsheets, procurement systems, and all the other places where business reality hides after the meeting ends. That is why the first wave of AI, as magical as it felt, was also strangely trapped. A model could write a beautiful summary of a business problem, but unless you gave it the actual business context, it was still guessing. An LLM is not programmed to say “Sorry, I don’t know.” So it makes stuff up with proper grammar and punctuation. It could explain how to troubleshoot an issue, but unless it could inspect the logs, check the configuration, or look at the environment, it was still operating from theory. It could tell you how to prepare for a customer meeting, but unless it could see the account history, the open opportunities, the support cases, the renewal status, and the meeting notes from last quarter, it was basically giving you a very articulate horoscope. MCP is one of the attempts to fix that. MCP stands for Model Context Protocol. The name sounds like it was assembled by people who are very good at distributed systems and very bad at naming things for humans, but the words are actually useful. “Model” refers to the AI model. “Context” refers to the information and tools the model needs in order to be useful. “Protocol” means a standard way for systems to communicate. In plain English, MCP is a standard way for AI applications to connect to external tools and data sources. That may sound boring, but boring is often where the real technology changes happen. Nobody gets a standing ovation for plumbing until the plumbing stops working. Nobody thinks about electrical standards when they plug in a night light. Nobody wants to understand every detail of networking just to open a website. Standards become invisible when they succeed, and that invisibility is exactly why they matter. The analogy people use is that MCP is like USB-C for AI. I know that analogy is already dangerously close to becoming a bumper sticker, but it works well enough if we do not abuse it. USB-C did not make your laptop smarter. It did not make your monitor more creative. It did not make your phone more emotionally available, although at this point I would appreciate it if mine at least tried. What USB-C did was standardize connection. Instead of every device requiring its own special cable, adapter, dongle, ritual, and small sacrifice to the drawer of dead electronics, USB-C created a common interface. MCP is trying to do something similar for AI. It gives AI applications a common way to connect to the tools and data they need. The model does not need to know the internal details of every application. The application does not need to build a completely different integration for every model. MCP creates a shared language in the middle. That middle layer is what matters. Without something like MCP, the AI world runs into what technical people call the N-by-M problem. Katie Baker wrote about it last year: NxM Problem If you have ten AI applications and ten systems they need to connect to, you do not want one hundred custom integrations. If you have fifty AI applications and two hundred systems, you definitely do not want ten thousand custom integrations, unless your business model is selling painkillers to integration teams. The better model is not N times M. It is closer to N plus M. Each AI application learns how to speak the protocol. Each tool or data source exposes itself through the protocol. Once both sides understand the same standard, the number of custom connections drops dramatically. This is the point where MCP starts to become more than an AI developer convenience. It starts to look like infrastructure. To understand how it works, you do not need to become a protocol engineer. You just need to understand three roles: the host, the client, and the server. The host is the AI application the user interacts with. That could be Claude Desktop, ChatGPT, Cursor, Visual Studio Code, or an internal enterprise assistant with a name like Atlas, Navigator, Compass, or whatever else the branding team selected after eliminating “Dave.” The host is where the experience lives. It is where the user types the request, where the model reasons, and where the answer or action comes back. The client lives inside the host and manages the connection to an MCP server. You can think of it as the part of the application that knows how to speak MCP on behalf of the model. It handles the conversation between the AI application and the external capability. The server is the wrapper around a data source. There might be an MCP server for GitHub, another for Slack, another for a database, another for a filesystem, another for a CRM, another for a cloud service, and eventually one for every system that vendors decide must now be described as “AI-ready” in a press release. The server’s job is to expose what it can provide in a way the AI application can understand. It might say, in effect, “Here are the documents I can make available. Here are the actions I support. Here is the format you need to use if you want to call one of those actions. Here are the permissions required. Here is the result you can expect back.” That is where the value appears. The AI application does not need to understand every internal detail of GitHub, Slack, Salesforce, Postgres, Kubernetes, or your company’s deeply loved but spiritually exhausted internal ServiceNOW ticketing system. It needs a standard way to discover and use the capabilities exposed by those systems. MCP gives it that standard way. The protocol itself is built around a few core ideas that are easier to understand than the terminology makes them sound. MCP servers can expose tools, resources, and prompts. Tools are actions the model can ask to perform. A tool might search a database, send a Slack message, create a support ticket, run a test, update a CRM record, query an API, or retrieve the status of a system. Tools are where the AI starts moving from “I can answer your question” to “I can help complete the task.” Resources are information the model can read. These could be files, documents, schemas, database records, logs, API responses, or other pieces of context. Resources matter because AI without context is mostly a very confident intern on the first day of work. It may be talented, it may be fast, and it may be enthusiastic, but it does not know where anything is. Prompts are reusable instructions or workflows. That sounds small, but it is not. In business, consistency matters. You may not want every user inventing their own version of “analyze this account,” “review this code,” “summarize this incident,” or “prepare this forecast update.” A prompt can define how a model should approach a task, what standards it should follow, what inputs it should consider, and what kind of output is expected. Tools let the model act. Resources give the model context. Prompts help shape the model’s behavior. That combination is what makes MCP useful. Let’s make this practical. Suppose you ask an AI assistant to help prepare you for a customer meeting. Without access to your systems, the assistant can give you a generic meeting prep template. It can tell you to understand the customer’s goals, review previous discussions, identify risks, prepare discovery questions, and align to business outcomes. None of that is wrong. It is also not especially magical. It is the kind of advice that sounds helpful until you realize it could apply to almost any meeting with almost any customer in almost any industry. Now imagine that same assistant has controlled access to the right systems through MCP servers. It can read the meeting notes from prior briefings, pull the current opportunity data, review support tickets, check the renewal timeline, inspect open technical issues, summarize the customer’s stated initiatives, and identify where the account team may be telling itself a story that is more optimistic than the facts support. It can then generate a briefing that is not generic at all. It is specific, grounded, and useful. That is the difference between AI as a writing assistant and AI as a work assistant. This is why MCP keeps showing up in conversations about agents. An agent is not just a chatbot with a better title. An agent is expected to reason through a goal, choose tools, gather information, take steps, observe results, and continue until the task is complete or until it needs human help. That requires a standard way to connect reasoning to action. MCP is one of the strongest candidates for that standard layer. This is also where the MCP conversation stops being abstract for anyone running Everpure Fusion. It is one thing to say that MCP allows AI agents to connect to enterprise systems. That sounds interesting, but it can still feel like one of those technology ideas that lives safely inside a product roadmap, an architecture diagram, or a conference session where the coffee is somehow both expensive and terrible. It becomes much more practical when you look at what Everpure is doing with the Everpure Fusion MCP Server. I can almost guarantee that you will not click the link below, so I read it for you. But that will be in Part 2. I already drafted it, but I want to be respectful of your time. Not all of my readers are Everpure customers (yet). So that is my MCP “…splanation,” at least the Part 1 version. MCP is not the robot, and it is not the magical brain that suddenly makes every workflow intelligent. It is the standard connection layer that helps AI move from “I can answer your question” to “I can interact with the systems where your work actually happens.” That may not sound glamorous, but neither does plumbing, electricity, networking, or storage until something important depends on it. And that is why MCP matters. Because the next phase of AI will not be defined only by which model sounds the smartest in a chat window. It will be defined by how safely, consistently, and usefully those models can connect to real tools, real data, and real workflows. In Part 2, I will bring this closer to home and look at what this means for Everpure Fusion, because once AI starts needing context from infrastructure, the way we manage that infrastructure starts to matter a lot more. Appreciate you reading. Dmitry Gorbatov © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereWhy Object Storage Still Matters
In Part 2, I wrote a line that, at the time, felt almost like a side comment — something I typed without fully appreciating how much it would change the direction of the story: “BREAKING NEWS: The FlashArray now supports Object??? What in the world? I may need to write an article about that!!” That reaction wasn’t planned, and it definitely wasn’t me being clever. It was me looking at the GUI and thinking, “that can’t be right… can it?” It didn’t line up with how I’ve been modeling storage architectures in my head for years, which usually means one of two things: either something fundamentally changed… or I’ve been confidently wrong about part of this for a while. And if I’m being completely honest, there was also a second reaction happening in parallel — one that I didn’t write down at the time because it sounded slightly ridiculous even in my own head: “Wait… do I actually understand why object storage exists in the first place? And more importantly… what exactly was wrong with files?” That’s the part nobody likes to admit out loud. We’ve all spent years confidently explaining block, file, and object as if we were born with that knowledge, when in reality most of us learned it incrementally, retroactively, and with just enough conviction to sound credible in front of a customer. Object storage, in particular, has always carried this aura of inevitability — like of course it’s better, of course it scales, of course it’s what modern applications need — without always forcing us to question why the previous model stopped being enough. Because for as long as most of us have been designing infrastructure, object storage has not simply been another protocol layered onto an existing system. It has represented a fundamentally different way of organizing and accessing data, one that required its own architectural approach, its own scaling model, and, more often than not, its own dedicated platform. The separation between block, file, and object was not arbitrary; it was a reflection of how deeply different those paradigms were in terms of metadata handling, access patterns, and performance expectations. This is precisely why platforms such as Everpure FlashBlade exist in the first place. They were not created as extensions of traditional storage systems but as purpose-built architectures designed to treat unstructured data — and particularly object data — as a first-class citizen. The use of distributed metadata services, sharded across independent nodes, combined with a key-value store storage model, allows such systems to achieve levels of parallelism and throughput that simply cannot be replicated within a controller-based design. In that context, object storage is not something that is “added” to the system; it is the system. Which is why seeing S3 support appear on FlashArray required a pause. Not excitement. Not skepticism alone. Something closer to intellectual friction. Reconciling Two Architectural Worlds The most important step in understanding what FlashArray has introduced is to resist the temptation to treat it as a direct comparison to FlashBlade. These aren’t two different ways of solving the same problem. They’re two different answers to two different problems—and pretending otherwise is where people get themselves into trouble. FlashBlade is built for object, not adapted to it. S3 talks directly to a distributed engine that thinks in objects, not files pretending to be objects. Metadata is spread across blades instead of becoming a centralized choke point, and the whole system scales the way modern workloads actually need it to. There’s no file system layer to fight with, no directory structure to navigate, no POSIX semantics getting in the way. It just does what you’d expect when you remove all of that: it goes fast, it scales cleanly, and it keeps up with workloads like HPC, AI and analytics without breaking a sweat. FlashArray takes a very different path, and in reality, it’s not what most people expect. It doesn’t try to reinvent itself as an object platform, and it doesn’t throw an S3 gateway in front of the array and call it a day. With Purity 6.10.5+, S3 just shows up as another protocol the system understands, right next to block and file. That distinction matters more than it seems. This isn’t something duct-taped on the side — it’s part of the same control plane, the same data path, the same system you’ve already been running. But let’s not pretend it turned into FlashBlade overnight. This is still a controller-driven architecture. The primary controller does the heavy lifting — handling requests, authenticating them, coordinating operations — before anything actually hits the storage engine. Which means it behaves differently, especially as workloads scale. So it ends up in this interesting middle ground. Not a native object system in the pure sense, but not a hack either. Just a different way of exposing what’s already there. The Translation Layer and Its Consequences It would be irresponsible to discuss FlashArray S3 without explicitly addressing the implications of this design. Even with its native integration into Purity, S3 operations are still subject to the realities of a controller-bound architecture. Every request must be processed, authenticated, and coordinated before it is executed, introducing a measurable difference in behavior compared to both native block operations and distributed object systems. The most immediate effect is latency. While FlashArray continues to deliver sub-150 microsecond performance for block workloads, S3 operations typically operate at higher latencies (in 1 millisecond range) due to the additional processing steps involved. This is not a flaw; it is the natural outcome of introducing a protocol that was designed for scale and flexibility into a system optimized for low-latency transactional workloads. Metadata handling further reinforces this distinction. FlashBlade distributes metadata across its architecture, enabling massive parallelism and consistent performance at scale. FlashArray processes metadata through its controller framework, which introduces natural serialization points under high concurrency. As workloads become increasingly metadata-heavy — particularly with small objects — this difference becomes more pronounced. The system also enforces clearly defined operational limits to maintain predictable performance. As of Purity 6.10.5+, FlashArray supports up to 250 S3 buckets per array and a maximum of 1,000,000 objects per bucket. FlashArray Object Store Limits Object storage operates at the array scope and does not integrate with multi-tenancy or “realms”, which has implications for service provider models and strict tenant isolation requirements. These constraints are not arbitrary limitations; they are guardrails that ensure the system behaves consistently within its architectural boundaries. Where the Architecture Becomes Secondary Having established those boundaries, the conversation naturally shifts from “how it works” to “why it matters”. In many enterprise environments, particularly within SLED organizations, the challenge is not achieving exabyte-scale throughput or supporting billions of objects. The challenge is delivering capabilities in a way that is operationally sustainable, economically efficient, and aligned with existing infrastructure. This is where FlashArray’s approach becomes compelling. By exposing object storage within the same platform that already supports block and file workloads, it eliminates the need to introduce a separate system, a separate operational model, and a separate set of dependencies. The same management interface, the same automation framework, and the same data services extend across all protocols. More importantly, object data inherits the full set of Purity capabilities. Global inline deduplication and compression apply to S3 workloads, significantly improving storage efficiency compared to many object-native platforms. SafeMode snapshots extend immutability to object storage, providing a critical layer of protection against ransomware. ActiveCluster, combined with ActiveDR, enables a three-site resilience model that ensures data availability across multiple locations with zero RPO between primary sites. These are not incremental improvements. They represent a shift in how object storage can be consumed within an enterprise. Practical Use Cases in a Unified Model When viewed through this lens, the use cases for FlashArray S3 become both clear and grounded in reality. Development and Staging Environments Some applications rely on S3 APIs but do not require massive scale, FlashArray provides a consistent and integrated object interface without introducing additional infrastructure. Developers can build and test against a familiar model while remaining within the same operational environment. Backup and Recovery Workflows FlashArray S3 enables modern data protection strategies that leverage object storage while benefiting from flash performance, deduplication, and indelible snapshots. This combination improves both recovery times and storage efficiency. Tier-two repositories and application-integrated storage represent another natural fit. Workloads such as document management systems, logs, and archival data often require object semantics but do not justify the higher cost of a dedicated object platform. Consolidating these workloads onto FlashArray simplifies operations while maintaining reliability and performance. Where the Boundaries Still Matter None of this diminishes the importance of selecting the appropriate platform for workloads that demand a different architecture. High-performance AI pipelines, large-scale analytics environments, and use cases requiring massive parallelism remain firmly within the domain of FlashBlade. The ability to scale performance linearly, distribute metadata across many nodes, and support billions of objects is not optional in these scenarios — it is essential. What has changed is not the relevance of those systems, but the necessity of deploying them for every object storage use case. A Subtle but Significant Shift The introduction of S3 on FlashArray does not represent a replacement of one architecture with another. It represents a convergence of capabilities within a unified operational framework. Object storage, in this model, is no longer a destination that requires its own platform. It becomes a capability — one of several ways to access and manage data within the same system. That shift is easy to overlook, but its implications are significant. It allows organizations to design around outcomes rather than protocols, to reduce complexity without sacrificing capability, and to align infrastructure more closely with the needs of modern applications. Closing Reflection Looking back at that line in Part 2, it is clear that the reaction was not just about a new feature appearing in the interface. It was about the recognition — however incomplete at the time — that something foundational was beginning to change. Object storage did not suddenly become simpler, nor did it lose the architectural complexity that defines it. What changed is where it lives. And once that becomes clear, you start asking a slightly uncomfortable but very honest question: If this works… and it works well enough for most of what I actually need… why was I so convinced it had to live somewhere else in the first place? That is usually where the interesting work begins. Appreciate you reading. Dmitry Gorbatov © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereFusion for the Win: You No Longer Have to Decide Where the Data Lives
Dmitry Gorbatov Apr 10, 2026 In the first post, I walked through enabling file services on a FlashArray. There was nothing particularly complicated about it. The process was clean, predictable, and by the end of it I had a fully functional file platform running on the same system that was already supporting the rest of the environment. It behaved exactly the way you would expect it to behave. And that is precisely what started to bother me. Because if you step back and look at what we actually did, the workflow has not really changed in years. I still made a series of decisions in a very specific order. I chose where the workload should live, I created the file system, I attached protection, and I made sure everything was named and organized in a way that made sense at that moment. It was structured. It was controlled. It was also entirely dependent on me. That model works well enough when the environment is small or when the same person is making the same decisions repeatedly. But as soon as you introduce scale, or simply more people, those decisions start to drift. Not in a dramatic way, but in small inconsistencies that accumulate over time. A slightly different naming convention here, a missed policy there, a workload placed somewhere because it “felt right.” Nothing breaks. It just becomes harder to operate. When the model stops making sense What stood out to me after going through the manual process is that we are still treating storage as something that needs to be individually managed, even though the platform itself has already moved beyond that. We have systems that can deliver consistent performance, global data services, and non-disruptive operations, yet we still rely on human judgment to decide where things go and how they should be configured. That disconnect is where Everpure Fusion begins to make sense. Not as an additional feature, but as a way to remove an entire class of decisions that we have simply accepted as part of the job. From managing infrastructure to defining intent The idea behind the Enterprise Data Cloud is not particularly complicated, but it does require a shift in perspective. Instead of treating each array as a separate system with its own boundaries, the environment becomes a unified pool of resources. Data is no longer something that you place on a specific array. It is something that exists within a global pool, governed by policies that define how it should behave. Once you start thinking this way, the questions change. You are no longer asking where a workload should go. You are asking what that workload needs to look like. Performance expectations, protection requirements, naming, and lifecycle behavior become the inputs, and the system automation takes responsibility for everything else. That is the role of Everpure Fusion. What actually changes in practice The easiest way to understand Fusion is to look at what it removes. In the manual model, every step is explicit. You build storage object by object, and then you attach policies to those objects. You rely on memory, experience, and sometimes documentation to make sure everything is done correctly. With Fusion, that entire process becomes declarative. Instead of building storage step by step, you define a preset. A preset is a reusable definition of what “correct” looks like for a given workload. It captures performance expectations, protection policies, naming conventions, and any constraints that should apply. Once that definition exists, it becomes the standard. When you create a workload from that preset, Fusion evaluates the environment and places it on the array that best satisfies those requirements. It creates the necessary objects, applies the policies, and ensures that everything is consistent with the definition. The important shift is not that tasks are automated. It is that decisions are no longer made ad hoc. Trying it in the lab After building file services manually in the previous post, I wanted to see what this would look like using the same environment, but driven through Fusion. I started by defining a fleet, grouping the array into a logical boundary where resources and policies could be managed collectively. Once the array becomes part of a fleet, you stop thinking of it as an individual system and start treating it as part of a shared pool. From there, identity becomes the next requirement. Fusion relies on centralized authentication, typically through secure LDAP backed by Active Directory. This is what governs access to presets and workloads, and it ensures that everything aligns with existing organizational controls. Up to this point, everything felt exactly like I expected. Then I moved to the part I was actually interested in. Where things didn’t quite line up The goal was to take the file services I had already built and express them as a preset. I wanted a single definition that would describe the file system, its structure, its policies, and its behavior, and then use that definition to create workloads without going through the manual steps again. Conceptually, that is exactly what Fusion is supposed to do. In practice, I ran into a limit that I had not fully appreciated at the start. I was running Purity OS 6.9.2. Which, to be fair, is where most production environments should be. It is a Long-Life Release, stable, predictable, and already capable of delivering Fusion for fleet management, intelligent placement, and policy-driven storage classes. You can create Presets and Workloads for block workloads. What it does not include is full support for File Presets on FlashArray. That capability, where a file system, its directories, and its access policies are all defined and deployed as a single unit, arrives in the 6.10.X Feature Release line. Which means that the exact outcome I was trying to demonstrate was sitting just one version ahead of me. This is where I had to laugh at myself There is always a moment in a lab where you realize that the limitation is not the platform. It is you. In this case, it was me getting ahead of the version I was actually running. My intentions were “ever” so “pure” (IYKYK). The execution was slightly behind the feature set. So I upgraded One of the advantages of working with this platform is that upgrading does not carry the same weight it used to. The system is designed for non-disruptive operations, and moving between versions does not require downtime or migration. The upgrade to 6.10.5 was uneventful in the best possible way. Controllers were updated in sequence, workloads continued to run, and the system transitioned to a new set of capabilities without introducing risk. There is something very satisfying about performing an upgrade not because something is broken, but because you want access to what comes next. BREAKING NEWS: The FlashArray now supports Object??? What in the world? I may need to write an article about that!! When it finally clicks Once on 6.10.5, the model finally aligns with the intent. Once I clicked on Create Your First Preset, it gave me these options: I defined a preset that described the file workload I had previously built manually. It included the expected behavior, protection policies, and naming conventions. Instead of creating individual components, I was defining the service as a whole. Now this was really neat - when you select Storage Class, it knows that arrays are available in your environment. In my case, I only have FA //X. At this point a new field opens and allows you to select the Storage Resources. Once I hit “Publish'“ this was the result: Think of this entire process like this: Define your Recipe (Preset) Order from the Menu (Workload) Lets create a workload from that preset. Once I clicked on + to add a new Workload, the Wizard opened: Give a name to that Workload: Since Fusion Fleet has both of my lab arrays, I have an option to select an array for the workload placement. Our of curiosity I clicked: “Get Recommendations” and this was the result: Once I hit Deploy, within seconds, the workflow executed and I had my File System created. How awesome is this? Come on, give me a cheer! Think about the magnitude of what just happened. I provided minimal input, and Fusion handled the rest. It selected the appropriate array based on capacity and performance, created the file system, applied the policies, and ensured that everything matched the definition. There was no second pass. There were no additional steps. The outcome matched the intent. By moving to this model, I just shifted from being a "storage admin" to a "data architect." I defined the outcomes and it happened “automagically”. Why this matters more than efficiency It would be easy to describe this as a way to reduce manual effort, but that misses the point. The real value is consistency. When every workload is created from a defined preset, variability disappears. Policies are enforced by default. Naming is consistent. Placement is based on a complete view of the environment rather than individual judgment. Over time, that consistency reduces operational friction and lowers risk in ways that are difficult to measure but easy to recognize. Environments behave predictably, scaling becomes simpler, and the likelihood of human error decreases. Where this leads In the first post, I showed that file services can run natively on the array without additional infrastructure. In this post, the focus shifted to removing the manual decisions involved in building and managing those services. The next step is where things move beyond automation. As capabilities like ActiveCluster for File continue to evolve, the conversation shifts toward mobility and continuous availability. At that point, it is no longer just about simplifying operations, but about removing the constraints that tie workloads to a specific system or location. That is a conversation for Part 4. Appreciate you reading. © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereStop Running File Servers on VMs
Dmitry Gorbatov Apr 06, 2026 One of the superstar Pre-Sales Systems Engineers on my team was in a customer meeting not too long ago, walking through what was, by all accounts, a well-run environment. The team knew what they were doing, the infrastructure was stable, and nothing stood out as particularly problematic. It was one of those conversations where everything feels “fine,” which in our world usually means there are inefficiencies hiding in plain sight. Then he started asking questions about enterprise file services. They were running a couple of Windows Server virtual machines on top of VMware vSphere, serving SMB shares to the rest of the organization. Again, nothing unusual there. This is still the default design in a lot of places, and it works well enough that nobody feels compelled to question it. But as the meeting on, a few details started to surface. One of the VMs was consistently running hot during backup windows. Another one hadn’t been patched in a while because nobody wanted to risk disrupting access to shared data. The storage policies applied at the VM layer didn’t quite line up with what was actually configured on the array. And there was an unspoken understanding that maintaining these systems was just part of the job — something you deal with, not something you optimize. What made it more interesting was that the same environment had an Everpure FlashArray running their critical workloads. It was handling databases, transactional systems, and anything else that required consistent performance and reliable data services. It was protected, replicated, and trusted. File services, however, were living on top of virtual machines, with their own lifecycle (please, please… don’t say VMware snapshots), their own dependencies, and their own set of operational overhead. That disconnect is what stuck with me. So instead of continuing the theoretical discussion about architecture and “best practices,” I went back to my lab and decided to try something very simple. I wanted to see what would actually happen if I enabled file services directly on the array and treated it as a first-class file platform instead of assuming that role belonged to something else. There was no redesign exercise, no migration plan, and no phased rollout. I wasn’t trying to prove a point on a whiteboard. I just wanted to turn it on and see if the experience matched what we tend to claim in conversations. Nothing broke. Nothing felt forced. And more importantly, nothing about it felt like a compromise. This post walks through exactly what I did to enable and run file services on a FlashArray //X20R4 running Purity 6.9.2. The goal is not to explain the architecture in abstract terms, but to show how straightforward it is to take something that already exists in your environment and use it in a way that removes unnecessary complexity. What I realized (and why this matters) Once everything was up and running, the first realization was that this is not a workaround or a secondary feature designed to fill a gap. FlashArray File is integrated into the platform in a way that makes it behave like a natural extension of what the system already does well. It uses the same controllers, the same global storage pool, and the same data services that are already in place for block workloads. There is no separate management layer, no additional appliance (remember Data Movers and NAS Personas?), and no need to think about it as something different from the rest of the system. That by itself is useful, but it is not the most important part. What stood out more was the amount of operational overhead that simply disappeared. When file services run on virtual machines, you inherit everything that comes with them. You are responsible for the guest operating system, including patching cycles, security updates, and the occasional issue that appears at the worst possible time. You are also consuming hypervisor resources and, in many cases, paying for licensing that exists solely to support a function that could be handled elsewhere. On top of that, you end up managing data protection, performance, and capacity in two different places (remember RDMs, or in-guest iSCSI?), which introduces opportunities for inconsistency. By moving file services onto the array, that entire layer is removed. You are not just changing where the workload runs; you are simplifying how it is operated, protected, and maintained over time. The second realization was that this approach aligns with where things are clearly heading. Everpure is already extending these capabilities with ActiveCluster for File, which will bring synchronous replication and continuous availability to unstructured data. I do not have that running in my lab yet, but it is not difficult to see the direction. As those capabilities become more widely available, the remaining reasons to maintain separate file platforms will continue to shrink. That will be a conversation for a future post. Let’s tentatively call it Part 3 of the series. Before you start (the part that actually matters) Enabling file services on the array is straightforward. The part that tends to create friction is everything that surrounds the configuration, particularly networking and integration with existing services. The first consideration is the choice of network interfaces. Although the array provides 1GbE management ports, those interfaces are not intended for serving file workloads. Using them for SMB or NFS traffic introduces an artificial bottleneck that will affect performance and, more importantly, perception. File services should be configured on the 10 or 25GbE data ports, which are designed to handle production traffic and provide the throughput expected from the platform. Here is what my array looked like earlier today: The highlighted ports are ETH10 and ETH11 on both controllers. Redundancy should be planned, but it does not need to be over engineered. A simple and reliable starting point is to use at least two ports per controller, ensuring that the configuration remains consistent across both sides. The goal is to achieve predictable failover behavior rather than to build a complex network design that is difficult to troubleshoot. One concept that is worth understanding early is the File Virtual Network Interface, or File VIF. This is the logical identity of the file service—the IP address that clients use to connect. It is designed to move between controllers as needed, maintaining availability during failover events. Once this concept is clear, the rest of the networking configuration becomes much easier to follow. My lab was built within budgetary constraints - that means I don’t have separate ethernet switches and I don’t have the time to build a separate DNS Server for FA File Services. Everpure recommends separating file client traffic from management traffic, but that’s a best practice, not a requirement. Since my lab switch is a single flat, untagged network and the environment is really just 192.168.1.0/24, I will just us the most practical approach - put the FA File VIFs on that same 192.168.1.0/24 network with their own IP addresses. Here is what I did: I just kept the file VIFs on 192.168.1.0/24 since that is the only real network available. FlashArray expects unique layer-3 subnets and does not support overlapping networks. DNS In my specific configuration, I don’t need a new DNS server. My existing management DNS servers can resolve the AD/DC hostnames and the FA File names/computer object. FA File can use the same DNS as management with no extra file-DNS configuration. By default, DNS lookups will go out the management interfaces, so my DNS server just needs to be reachable from the management network. And it is. Let’s turn the lights on, shall we? After assigning the IP addresses and enabling the ports, the lights came on. Important design note I will use one client-facing VIF IP for the file service, for example: File VIF IP: 192.168.1.135 Netmask: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.1.2 default gateway Do not try to use 192.168.1.131-134 as four separate FA File IPs unless you intentionally want multiple VIFs. The ct*.eth* ports are transport underlay, not the SMB/NFS endpoint IPs. Configuring a File Server and File VIF Open the File Services server page Go to Storage → Servers. Open the default server (_array_server) or create a new file server if you want a dedicated namespace. Stay on that server’s details page. 3. Create the File VIF Use physical bonding first; it’s the simplest. In the Virtual Interfaces section, click + Create VIF. Choose Physical Bonding. Select the underlying port pairs: Pair 1: ct0.eth10 and ct1.eth10 Pair 2: ct0.eth11 and ct1.eth11 Name the VIF something simple, e.g.: filevip1 Enter network settings: IP Address: 192.168.1.135 Netmask: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.1.1 Leave VLAN blank since there are no VLANs. Save and Enable the VIF. That creates the client-facing IP for SMB/NFS. 4. Configure DNS Integration with DNS and Active Directory is another area where a bit of preparation goes a long way. File services rely on proper name resolution and domain integration, and it is important to recognize that file-related DNS settings are separate from the array’s management DNS configuration. The system effectively becomes a participant in the domain as a file server, which means that DNS records, domain join operations, and permissions should be planned accordingly rather than improvised during setup. Since my DNS is 192.168.1.2 and I want to reuse management DNS: Go to the server’s DNS Settings. My management DNS is already configured and points to 192.168.1.2 If you want to explicitly add file DNS: Click + in DNS Name: file-dns Domain suffix: your AD/domain suffix DNS server: 192.168.1.2 Service: file Source interface can remain default unless you specifically need file VIF sourcing. 5. Create required DNS A records On my DNS server 192.168.1.2, I created an A record for the file service name pointing to the File VIF IP. Name: fa-file01 IP: 192.168.1.135 If you are joining AD for SMB/Kerberos: Make sure DNS also has A records for all relevant domain controllers. Create the A record that matches the AD computer object / FA File service name. 6. Join Active Directory or configure LDAP If using SMB Use Active Directory. Go to: Storage → Servers → _array_server Then look for one of these panels: Remote Directory Service Click Edit Configuration Select Active Directory Enter: Name Domain DNS Name Computer Name Use Existing Account if applicable AD User Password TLS Mode Save / Join This part took me 2 hours. I was getting some crazy error messaged that I’m simply embarrassed to share here. It was not the DNS. It was an NTP server misconfiguration that was causing Kerberos to not authenticate properly. There was a 10 minute time skew between the FlashArray and the domain controller. 7. Create a File System The file system is the top-level container for your unstructured data. GUI Method: Navigate to Storage > File Systems and click the plus sign (+). Enter a name and click Create. CLI Method: Use the following command: purefs create <file-system-name>. 8. Create a Managed Directory Managed directories allow you to apply specific policies (like quotas or snapshots) to subfolders within a file system. GUI Method: Go to Storage > File Systems. Click on the name of the file system you just created. Select the Directories tab and click the plus sign (+). Enter the directory name and the internal path (e.g., /users). CLI Method: Use the following command: puredir create filesystem1:users --path /users. 9. Create an Export The export makes the managed directory accessible to clients over the network. GUI Method: Navigate to Storage > Policies > Export Policies. Select an existing policy (e.g., a standard SMB or NFS policy) or create a new one. Within the policy view, click the plus sign (+) to add an export. Select your Managed Directory, choose the appropriate Server (use _array_server for standard configurations), and provide an Export Name (this is the name clients will use to mount the share). CLI Method: Use the following command: puredir export create --dir <file-system-name>:<directory-name> --policy <policy-name> --server <server-name> --export-name <client-facing-name>. A quick validation step At this point, it is worth validating access from a client system. Map the SMB share and perform a simple set of operations—create files, read data, and verify permissions. This is less about testing performance and more about confirming that networking, authentication, and access controls are behaving as expected. In most cases, if the earlier steps around DNS and Active Directory were done correctly, this validation step is uneventful, which is exactly what you want. And now let the data migration begin. I am actually doing it from my Mac. And it just works!!! What becomes apparent after completing these steps is how little effort is required to stand up a fully functional file platform on infrastructure that is already in place. Unless, of course, your NTP server crashed. The system behaves predictably, integrates cleanly with existing services, and avoids many of the operational burdens associated with VM-based file servers. And that is where things start to get interesting. Because everything described so far is still being done manually—selecting where things live, defining configurations, and applying policies one step at a time. It works, and it works well, but it also mirrors the way storage has traditionally been managed. In the next post, I will show what happens when you stop doing these steps manually and let Pure Fusion handle placement, policy, and provisioning instead. Appreciate you reading. © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereAsk Us Everything: Evergreen//One™ Edition — What the Community Learned
A recent Ask Us Everything (AUE) session on Pure Storage Evergreen//One™ was a lively, deeply technical conversation—and exactly the kind of dialogue that makes the Pure Community special. Here are some of the biggest takeaways, organized around the questions asked and the insights that followed.
