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.
Keeping Your Fleet Up-to-Date Just Got a Lot Easier
Did you know: 95% of Purity upgrades now finish in under 90 minutes. You can run them in parallel and your whole fleet finishes in the same time it takes to do one. Every Purity release delivers more: better performance, new capabilities, the latest security updates. Staying current is how you keep pulling value out of hardware you already own. At Everpure, upgrades shouldn't be something you plan your week around, or something that delays the benefits every Purity release brings. Self-Service Upgrades in Pure1 (SSU) let you upgrade Purity on your own schedule, directly from Pure1, without opening a support ticket. It has quietly become the most popular way customers keep their fleets current. What's new: Automated SSU SSU has always given you full control over the upgrade flow, with mandatory pauses after each major step (health check, download, installation) and deciding when to continue. For teams who want to validate at every checkpoint, that is exactly how it should work and that manual flow isn't going anywhere. For everyone else, it meant mandatory delays and too much hands-on involvement. Arrays sitting idle between phases, waiting for someone to click through.More time spent on an upgrade than necessary, and enough that some teams never tried SSU at all, and kept pushing upgrades for later. Automated SSU is the option for those who want to go fast without giving anything up. Pick any number of appliances, select the target Purity version, authenticate, and go. The workflow runs to completion on its own, non-disruptive by design, so your workloads keep running throughout. If anything goes wrong, the upgrade pauses on that appliance and a proactive case opens with Everpure Support. Over 100 automatic health checks run before and during the upgrade, and the workflow won't move past a critical failure. First response from Support is typically 30 minutes for install issues, 60 minutes for others. Built for fleets Need to cover your whole fleet? Select your appliances in bulk, hit go, and they upgrade in parallel, finishing in the same time it takes to do one. The Software Lifecycle dashboard shows you exactly what's running, what's done, and what (if anything) needs your attention. If your target version is several releases ahead, SSU computes the upgrade path and runs the intermediate hops on its own. Get started in 15 minutes Not on SSU yet? The one-time setup takes about 15 minutes: enable cloud connection on each appliance from the CLI, then bulk-install the Purity Upgrade Agent from Pure1. After that, it is ready when you need it. Give Automated SSU a try. It really is easier than you think. Full SSU prerequisites and setup guide"Where’s Waldo?", But for your Data
This past Saturday, my wife and I sat at my son’s college graduation ceremony doing what every proud parent does after running out of tears and tissues: staring at the giant screen, scanning a crowd of thousands, and playing a very emotional, very expensive version of Where’s Waldo? The camera pulled back and showed the graduating class. Thousands of caps. Thousands of gowns. Thousands of people who had just survived exams, group projects, late-night studying, bad cafeteria decisions, emotional phone calls home, and whatever personal version of “I’ll start the paper tomorrow” they subscribed to. Somewhere in that sea of mostly identical academic robes was my son. I knew he was there. We had dropped him off at college years earlier, paid tuition, bought supplies, endured move-in day, survived the separation anxiety, worried about him, cheered for him, and occasionally pretended to be calmer than we actually were. I knew exactly why we were in that room. But on that screen, in that moment, he was just one face among thousands. So I started searching for him. Every parent around me was probably doing some version of the same thing. We were not looking at a graduating class in the abstract. We were looking for our graduate. Everyone else on that screen mattered deeply to someone, but to us they were mostly context without identity: a massive, moving, emotional dataset with almost no metadata attached. That was the strange thing about the picture. It showed us everything and told us almost nothing. There were thousands of people on the screen, but unless you already knew who you were looking for, you did not really know what you were looking at. Somewhere between the pride, the camera angle, and my increasingly poor performance at parental facial recognition, my brain did what my brain unfortunately does. It connected a very human moment to the way enterprises think about data. Because this is exactly the problem most organizations have with their data. They know it is there. They know there is a lot of it. They know some of it is incredibly valuable, some of it is probably risky, and some of it is duplicated, outdated, forgotten, regulated, misplaced, or being accessed by people and systems nobody has thought about in years. But knowing there is a crowd is not the same thing as knowing who is in it. That is the part we do not talk about enough. For years, data management conversations were mostly about where the data lived, how it was protected, how fast it could be accessed, and how much it cost to keep it all running. Those things still matter. They will always matter. But they are no longer enough. The new question is not simply, “Where is the data?” The better question is, “What is this data, who does it belong to, why does it exist, who is using it, where has it moved, what risk does it carry, and should this AI model, business process, analyst, application, or employee be touching it at all?” That is a very different conversation, and that is why 1touch matters. Not because the industry needed one more product logo, one more acronym, or one more keynote phrase that sounds important until everyone quietly admits they are not exactly sure what it means. 1touch matters because it is aimed directly at the problem of not knowing. The lie of visibility Most organizations believe they have visibility into their data because they have tools that can show them infrastructure. They can show arrays, volumes, file systems, buckets, databases, dashboards, latency charts, replication status, backup jobs, snapshots, anomalies, alerts, and the occasional red icon that ruins someone’s morning. All of that is useful. None of it guarantees understanding. An IT team can tell you a volume is 87 percent full, but that does not mean they know it contains expired customer records, old HR exports, forgotten underwriting files, production data copied into a test environment, or a spreadsheet with 40,000 Social Security numbers created in 2018 by someone who left the company three reorganizations ago. A security team can tell you an alert fired, but that does not mean they know whether it represents real exposure, a false positive, or just another noisy event in a pile nobody has enough hours to investigate. A data team can point to a lake, a warehouse, a catalog, and a governance process, but that does not mean the data is clean, trusted, current, properly classified, or safe to feed into an AI workflow. This is the uncomfortable truth: enterprise data visibility has often meant visibility into containers, not contents. We could see the auditorium. We could count the very uncomfortable seats. But we still could not tell which graduate was my son. The graduation screen was not useless. It showed scale. It proved the event was real. It helped me understand the crowd. But until I could identify the person I cared about, the picture was incomplete. Enterprise data estates work the same way. The problem is not that organizations have no tools. They often have too many. The problem is that many tools see the surface of the environment but miss the identity, relationship, movement, and meaning of the data inside it. That gap was inconvenient in the old world. In the AI world, it is dangerous. AI does not forgive ignorance Before generative AI entered every boardroom conversation, the consequences of not knowing your data were already serious: compliance exposure, bloated infrastructure costs, security blind spots, slow audits, manual discovery, painful legal requests, cloud migration delays, and business users waiting weeks for access to information because nobody could confidently say what was safe to use. Then AI showed up and made the problem louder. AI feeds on data. Lots of it. Structured data, unstructured data, documents, emails, transcripts, PDFs, customer records, logs, knowledge bases, support case histories, SaaS exports, file shares, objects, and anything else that might help a model answer a question, summarize a situation, automate a workflow, or make a decision. That sounds exciting until you remember that most enterprises do not fully know what is in all of those places. And AI is not magic. If the input is wrong, the output inherits that problem. Sometimes the model hallucinates. Sometimes it exposes something it should not. Sometimes it makes a recommendation based on data that was never supposed to leave a specific jurisdiction. Sometimes it answers confidently from a document that was obsolete three policies ago. Sometimes it gives the right answer to the wrong person, which may be the scariest version of all because the technology can look like it is working while quietly violating the trust model of the business. That is why “AI-ready data” cannot simply mean “we pointed a model at a repository.” That is not readiness. That is hope with an API call. AI-ready data needs context. It needs classification, identity, policy, and confidence. It needs a way to distinguish between a harmless document, a restricted record, a regulated attribute, an exposed credential, and a data fragment that only becomes sensitive when connected to other fragments somewhere else. A number or a name by itself may not mean much. A location, transaction, or timestamp by itself may not mean much either. But connect the number to the name, the name to the patient record, the patient record to a geography, the geography to a regulation, the regulation to a storage location, and the storage location to an access path, and suddenly you are not looking at random data anymore. You are looking at risk. Or value. Often both. This is where 1touch becomes important, because its value is not just identifying patterns and sticking labels on files. Its value is in discovering, classifying, and contextualizing data across environments so organizations can understand not only what exists, but what it means. That distinction matters. The difference between labeling and knowing At graduation, every student had the same basic label: graduate. That label was accurate, but it was wildly insufficient. One graduate may be heading to medical school. Another may be joining a startup. Another may be the first person in their family to earn a degree. Another may have worked two jobs to get there. Another may have changed majors three times and somehow still finished on time, which frankly deserves its own medal. The label tells you the category. The context tells you the story. Data works the same way. A traditional tool might identify something that looks like a credit card number, Social Security number, email address, medical code, account number, or passport field. That is useful, but it can also create noise. Strings of digits appear everywhere. Test data looks real. Real data looks fake. A file name can lie. A folder path can be misleading. A database column called “ID” might be harmless, or it might be the key to everything. Context is what turns a guess into intelligence. 1touch approaches this problem by looking at the broader semantic environment around the data. It is not just asking, “Does this pattern match something sensitive?” It is asking, “What surrounds it? What system did it come from? Who accesses it? Where does it move? What other data is connected to it? What business process does it support? What regulatory meaning does it carry?” That matters because in the real world, data risk rarely lives in a single isolated field. It lives in relationships. The same way my son was not immediately identifiable to the room because he was wearing a cap and gown like everyone else, sensitive enterprise data is often not obvious because it is dressed like everything else. It sits in file shares, databases, cloud repositories, SaaS platforms, mainframes, archives, exports, and forgotten project folders. It blends into the crowd. The old approach was to scan the crowd every so often and hope you recognized enough faces. The newer requirement is continuous understanding: discovering data where it lives, watching how it moves, connecting fragments across systems, and building a living map of identity, access, classification, and risk. Not a once-a-year inventory. Not a spreadsheet. Not a governance theater exercise where everyone nods in a meeting and then goes back to copying production data into development because the test system “needed something realistic.” A living map. That is the real promise. Why this matters The value of 1touch can be easy to undersell if we describe it only as sensitive data discovery or Data Security Posture Management (DSPM). Those descriptions may be accurate, but they are not the business problem. A prospect is not waking up hoping to buy a classification engine. They are waking up with pressure from the board, auditors, regulators, cyber insurers, application owners, AI initiatives, cloud migration teams, and business leaders who want faster access to “clean” data without increasing risk. And for those of us who have been around this industry long enough to have a few emotional support scars, this problem is not new. We were talking about lifecycle data management and data classification projects 20 years ago. Kazeon, StoredIQ, and others were all trying to help customers understand what was hiding inside their unstructured data environments before the phrase “dark data” became a fashionable way to describe a very unfashionable mess. I personally used Kazeon back in 2006, before EMC acquired it and eventually killed it. The idea was right. The experience was painful. I remember a project where it took almost two months to scan the environment, process the results, and prepare the report. We finally sat down with the customer, proudly showed them the findings from roughly 5TB of unstructured data, and waited for the moment where they would appreciate all the classification goodness we had brought into their lives. Instead, the customer looked at us and asked the only question that mattered: “Where is the rest of my 55TB?” There are moments in a technical meeting when the room temperature changes without the thermostat being involved. This was one of them. Apparently the tool did not have permissions to scan the rest of the environment. So after two months of work, the result was technically accurate and practically incomplete, which is the most dangerous kind of confidence. We had a report. We had charts. We had findings. What we did not have was the whole truth. That is why this matters now. The enterprise data problem did not begin with AI. AI simply made the consequences of incomplete understanding much harder to ignore. Twenty years ago, a bad classification project meant a frustrated customer, an awkward meeting, and a lot of manual cleanup. Today, the same kind of blind spot can contaminate an AI pipeline, expose regulated data, break a sovereignty policy, delay a migration, or give executives a false sense of security. For existing customers, the value is even more strategic. They already trust the platform to store, protect, move, and serve their data. The next logical question is whether it can help them understand the data as well. That is the bridge 1touch helps build. That is important because customers are tired of stitching together disconnected tools where one product sees storage, another sees identity, another sees security events, another sees data catalogs, another sees cloud posture, and another sees compliance workflows. Everyone sees something, but nobody sees enough. Customers do not need more fragmented visibility. They need connected context. Most importantly, it helps us explain why the conversation has moved from where data sits to what the data actually means. Back to the screen Eventually, during the ceremony, I found my son. Definitely when his name was announced and he walked across that stage. But the moment stayed with me because it was such a simple reminder: seeing a crowd is not the same as knowing the people in it. Every person on that screen had a story, a history, a family somewhere in the stands trying to yell the loudest, and a future that was about to begin. From a distance, they looked identical. Up close, they were anything but. Enterprise data is like that too. From a dashboard, it can look like capacity, files, objects, tables, volumes, buckets, repositories, shares, records, and logs. But inside that data are customer identities, patient histories, citizens tax records, contracts, intellectual property, employee information, business secrets, stale copies, duplicate exports, forgotten archives, useful insights, hidden risks, and the raw material for the next generation of AI-driven business processes. The organizations that win will not be the ones that simply store the most data. They will be the ones that know what their data means. That is why 1touch matters. Because the future of data management is not just finding Waldo. It is understanding the entire crowd. Appreciate you reading. Dmitry Gorbatov © 2025 Dmitry Gorbatov | #dmitrywashereSecurity Is Not a Feature — It's the Foundation
Let's get something out of the way upfront: this is not a ransomware horror story. This is not a "cyber resilience framework" deep-dive full of three-letter acronyms that could potentially make your eyes glaze over if it's not your cup of tea. And this is definitely not a pitch deck disguised as a blog post. This is the real story of how Everpure thinks about security — at the architecture level — and why that distinction matters more than most people realize when they're evaluating storage platforms. Because here's the thing: security isn't a bolt-on. It's not a checkbox. And it's certainly not a conversation you should have to schedule separately from the one about performance or reliability. At Everpure, security is baked in from the ground up — and once you understand how, you'll never look at a storage spec sheet the same way again. Start With the Five S's At Everpure, we talk a lot about what we call the Five S's of data: Simplicity, Speed, Scale, Sustainability, and Security. They're not independent pillars — they're interlocking principles that define every design decision we make. Simplicity because complexity is the enemy of agility. If you can't iterate quickly, you can't grow. Speed because we've been all-flash since day one — full stop. Every generation of our platform has been optimized around flash, not retrofitted for it. Scale because data doesn't stop growing, and your storage shouldn't hit a wall when your business doesn't. Sustainability because power, cooling, and physical footprint are real constraints — especially now, as those pressures trickle down from hyperscalers to everyone else. Security because none of the other four matter if your data isn't protected. Security is the one that tends to get either oversimplified ("we encrypt everything") or overcomplicated ("here's our 47-page compliance matrix"). Neither is helpful. What's helpful is understanding how it works, why it's different, and what it means in a real conversation with a real customer. The Compliance Landscape: What Customers Are Actually Asking About Before we get into the architecture, let's talk about the validations — because customers are increasingly asking about them, and the answers matter. FIPS 140-3 is the latest standard from the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP), managed by NIST. It validates that a cryptographic module — the thing actually doing the encryption — meets a defined security standard. Everpure's FlashArray is FIPS 140-3 validated. That's the current gold standard, and it matters especially as post-quantum cryptography conversations start entering the room. (More on that in a moment.) Common Criteria is an international standard for evaluating the security of IT products — not just storage, but networking, applications, hardware modules, and more. Everpure's FlashArray is certified under the Network Device collaborative Protection Profile (NDcPP) via NIAP, while FlashBlade holds an EAL2 certification. Independent testing and verification confirm that each platform meets its defined security target. You can actually enable Common Criteria mode directly on a FlashArray — it's a CLI command, not a professional services engagement. PCI DSS compatibility is table stakes in financial services, but it increasingly shows up in other industries too. It means end-to-end data masking, encryption in-flight and at rest, and a well-documented audit trail. Everpure's platforms are designed to support PCI DSS requirements natively — though it's worth noting that PCI DSS certification belongs to the merchant environment as a whole, not to any individual storage component. TLS 1.2 and 1.3 are the current standards for securing data in-flight at the management layer. Everpure standardizes these across all management communications — and yes, you can turn off older cipher suites if your security posture requires it. TAA Compliance means that Everpure's hardware is manufactured in the United States. For customers in regulated industries or government, this isn't a nice-to-have — it's a requirement. And for anyone who cares about supply chain transparency, Everpure can show its work. None of this is marketing fluff. These are independently validated, publicly verifiable certifications. You can find all of them — current CVE database, FIPS status, NIST 800-53 alignment, media sanitization documentation — at our Customer Trust portal. Bookmark it as It's fully public-facing and constantly updated. The Hardware Story: Why No Keys on the Drive Is the Point Here's where things get interesting. Take a Direct Flash Module — Everpure's approach to flash — and look at what's not on it. No CPU. No memory. No encryption keys. It is not a self-contained storage array. It is purpose-built flash media, and everything else — the intelligence, the encryption, the key management — lives in software. Why does that matter? Because self-encrypting drives (SEDs) are a pain. Anyone who's managed them in a regulated environment knows this intimately. When the encryption is in the hardware, you inherit all the complexity that comes with it: drive-level key management, FTL overhead, KMIP integration headaches, and the ever-present risk that a single drive failure or misconfiguration creates a data accessibility nightmare. Everpure's approach flips this entirely. Because the Direct Flash Module has no CPU, no memory, and no keys, all encryption is handled at the software layer — in Purity, running across the entire system. This means no hardware dependency, no FTL management overhead, and no encryption key tied to a specific piece of media. The portability this creates is remarkable. And as you'll see in a moment, it's the foundation of everything else. How Everpure's Encryption Actually Works Let's peel back the layers here, because this is genuinely cool — and it's the kind of thing that separates a confident storage conversation from a "let me get back to you" one. Everpure's encryption architecture is built around three components: The Data Encryption Key (DEK) is the actual key used to encrypt customer data. There's one per array, and it doesn't change. You might think: why would you never rotate the key that's protecting your data? The answer is that the DEK never needs to rotate because of what wraps it. The Key Encrypting Key (KEK) is a key that encrypts other keys — specifically, it wraps the DEK. This is standard cryptographic practice, and it's the mechanism that makes key rotation safe, fast, and completely transparent to the workload. The Armored DEK is the DEK after it's been wrapped by the KEK. This is the piece that gets distributed. At no point is the raw Data Encryption Key exposed in clear text. It's always wrapped, always protected. Here's where the architecture gets elegant: when a FlashArray or FlashBlade initializes, it generates a KEK. That KEK wraps the DEK to create the Armored DEK. The Armored DEK is stored as a complete copy in every Direct Flash Module header — but it cannot be decrypted without the KEK. The KEK itself is derived from a scrambled key, which is split into individual shares and distributed one per DFM header using a sharding algorithm that requires a quorum to reconstruct. What does quorum mean in practice? The system can tolerate drive losses and still unlock all data, as long as enough DFMs remain present and healthy to reconstruct the scrambled key. No single drive is a single point of failure for your encryption keys. When a read request comes in, here's what happens: the system reconstructs the scrambled key from a quorum of DFM shares, derives the KEK, and uses it to unwrap the Armored DEK — exposing the DEK temporarily in memory, never persisted in clear text — and uses it to decrypt the data. The process is reversed for writes. At no point is customer data stored or persisted in clear text. Everything written to NVRAM is encrypted before it ever reaches upper-level system processes. This isn't "we encrypt everything." This is a specifically designed cryptographic architecture that is portable, resilient, and opaque to any unauthorized party — including someone who physically removes a drive. Key Rotation: The Part Most Vendors Skip By default, Everpure rotates the Key Encrypting Key every 24 hours. Automatically. No KMIP server required. No scheduled maintenance window. It just happens. When a KEK rotates, the system generates a new one, re-encrypts the Armored DEK, and redistributes the updated scrambled key shares across all DFM headers. The DEK itself doesn't change — the workload never sees it — but the wrapping layer that protects it is refreshed daily. When drives are added or removed, the system treats this as a high availability event: it generates a new KEK immediately, re-encrypts everything, and rebalances the shards across the new drive configuration. The key material always matches the current system state. And when a DFM is removed from the system? The scrambled key shares on that drive correspond to a KEK that no longer exists — or will be rotated away within 24 hours. A removed drive becomes cryptographically useless. This is how Everpure delivers what some would call "instant media sanitization" — not by wiping the drive, but by invalidating the key that makes its contents meaningful. Rapid Data Locking: When You Need the Nuclear Option For environments where security isn't just a compliance requirement but a physical reality — air-gapped facilities, defense deployments, high-security data centers — Everpure has a capability called Rapid Data Locking (RDL). The concept: the Key Encrypting Key can be placed on a pair of hardware security tokens (one YubiKey per controller, two total) and inserted into the array. As long as the tokens are present, the array operates normally. If they are removed and the array is subsequently rebooted or power-cycled, the array cannot complete startup without the tokens present — the data remains physically intact, but it is cryptographically inaccessible. The array becomes, in the most literal sense, an expensive brick. Reinsert the tokens and power the array back on, and it boots up normally. This is the kind of capability that used to require expensive, bespoke security architecture. For Everpure customers, it's a feature of the platform. Dark Sites Are Getting Less Dark One more topic worth addressing: dark site deployments. Air-gapped environments have always involved painful tradeoffs — disconnected from cloud management, manual support processes, limited visibility into system health. That's changing. Dark site customers can now see their assets within Pure1 — subscriptions, health status, the ability to open and manage support cases — without compromising their air-gap requirements. Log obfuscation tooling is available today and will be integrated directly into the platform going forward, giving customers granular control over what telemetry leaves their environment and when. For partners and customers managing dark site deployments, this is a meaningful quality-of-life improvement. And it's consistent with how Everpure builds everything: the security architecture makes the operational flexibility possible, not the other way around. The Takeaway Security conversations in the storage industry tend to go one of two ways: a recitation of certifications that nobody fully understands, or a vague reassurance that "everything is encrypted." Neither builds confidence. Neither answers the real question, which is: how does this actually work, and why should I trust it? Everpure's answer starts with architecture. Software-managed encryption, no hardware key dependency, automatic key rotation, cryptographic portability, quorum-based scrambled key distribution, and capabilities like Rapid Data Locking that scale to the most demanding security requirements in the world. The certifications — FIPS 140-3, Common Criteria, TLS 1.3, TAA — aren't the story. They're the evidence. The story is that security was designed in from the beginning, not layered on afterward. That's a meaningful difference. And now you know why.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 | #dmitrywashereNFS over TLS on FlashArray (Purity//FA 6.10.6)
Purity//FA 6.10.6 introduces NFS over TLS for FlashArray File Services: an in-transit encryption layer that wraps NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 RPC traffic in a TLS 1.3 session as defined by RFC 9289 - Towards Remote Procedure Call Encryption By Default. Server authentication is mandatory, and mutual TLS (mTLS) is available as an optional second factor. This post is a technical feature description plus a minimum viable configuration walkthrough. It assumes you are already comfortable with FlashArray File Services (file servers, exports, policies) and Linux NFS clients. What the feature actually is Transport encryption for NFS - NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 RPC traffic is carried inside a TLS 1.3 record layer over TCP/2049. No NFS-level changes; applications and mount paths stay the same. Server authentication - the FlashArray presents an X.509 certificate; the client validates it against its own trust store. Server certificates must include the file-server VIF in the SAN. Optional mTLS - the array can require and verify a client certificate against a configured trusted CA (single certificate or a certificate group). Per-server policy - TLS configuration is a first-class tls policy attached to a specific file server, not a global toggle. End-to-end data path NFS over TLS data path. tlshd on the client performs the TLS handshake against the FlashArray; the resulting session encrypts all consequent NFS traffic on established connection. Building blocks on the FlashArray The feature is exposed as a new tls policy type that ties together three existing concepts: certificates (imported or self-signed), the tls-policy object, and a file server. The policy holds the appliance certificate, the TLS version/cipher constraints, the protocols TLS is enforced for, and (optionally) the trusted CA used to authenticate clients. TLS versions and cipher suites NFS over TLS on FlashArray negotiates TLS 1.3 for the NFS data path. The tls-policy object accepts --minimum-tls-version values of 1.2 or 1.3 , but that minimum is a floor, not a contract - for NFS the negotiated version will always be 1.3. The default TLS 1.3 cipher set is: TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (mandatory per RFC 8446) On clients with AES-NI, TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 is the natural choice. TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 is the cipher to prefer on clients without AES hardware acceleration. NFS protocol versions and mount options Both NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 are supported. The Linux client opts into TLS at mount time via the xprtsec option, mediated by tlshd : Option Meaning xprtsec=tls One-way TLS, server authentication only xprtsec=mtls Mutual TLS - client also presents a certificate vers=4.1 / vers=3 NFS protocol version Prerequisites FlashArray: Purity//FA 6.10.6 or later, with at least one configured file server. Client OS: a recent Linux distribution with NFS-over-TLS support (e.g. Rocky Linux 10), including nfs-utils , tlshd and openssl (for certificate handling). Certificates: a server certificate signed by a CA the client trusts; if there is no proper DNS record set up, the certificate must include the file-server IP Address in its subjectAltName . For mTLS, a client certificate signed by a CA the array trusts. Configuration walkthrough This is the minimum sequence to land an encrypted NFS mount. Replace IPs, names and certificate paths to taste. If you don't yet have a CA to issue the server (and, for mTLS, client) certificate from, see the test-CA appendix at the end of this post. 1. FlashArray - import the appliance certificate # on the FlashArray CLI - interactive paste of key, then certificate purecert imported create nfs-server-cert --key # for mTLS only: import the CA used to sign client certificates purecert imported create nfs-client-ca 2. FlashArray - create a TLS policy Server-auth-only policy: purepolicy tls create nfs-tls-policy \ --appliance-certificate nfs-server-cert \ --tls-enforced-for nfs mTLS variant - require the client to present a certificate and verify it against a trusted CA (the trusted CA argument accepts either a single certificate or a certificate_group ): purepolicy tls create nfs-mtls-policy \ --appliance-certificate nfs-server-cert \ --tls-enforced-for nfs \ --client-certificates-required \ --client-certificate-trust-verify-enabled \ --trusted-client-ca-certificate nfs-client-ca Optional version / cipher tuning: purepolicy tls setattr nfs-tls-policy --minimum-tls-version 1.3 purepolicy tls setattr nfs-tls-policy \ --enabled-tls-ciphers TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384,TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 purepolicy tls list --effective 3. FlashArray - attach the policy to a file server pureserver list purepolicy tls add nfs-tls-policy --server your-file-server purepolicy tls list --member Once the policy is attached, the file server starts requiring TLS for any new NFS connection on that VIF. Existing un-encrypted sessions are not renegotiated or dropped on policy change - clients must remount or restart their NFS service to pick up the new requirements. The same caveat applies when removing or rotating the trusted client CA. 4. FlashArray - create the export (unchanged from regular NFS) purefs create your-filesystem puredir create your-filesystem:your-managed-dir purepolicy nfs create your-nfs-policy purepolicy nfs rule add your-nfs-policy \ --client "*" --no-root-squash --rw --version nfsv3,nfsv4 puredir export create your-export \ --dir your-filesystem:your-managed-dir \ --policy your-nfs-policy \ --server your-file-server The export must live on the same file server that the TLS policy is attached to (note the --server argument). 5. Linux client - install and configure tlshd dnf install -y nfs-utils ktls-utils systemctl enable --now tlshd mkdir -p /etc/pki/nfs cp ca.crt /etc/pki/nfs/ca.crt chmod 644 /etc/pki/nfs/ca.crt Minimal /etc/tlshd.conf for server-only TLS: [debug] loglevel=1 tls=1 nl=0 [authenticate] [authenticate.client] x509.truststore=/etc/pki/nfs/ca.crt [authenticate.server] For mTLS, add the client identity: [authenticate.client] x509.certificate=/etc/pki/nfs/client.crt x509.private_key=/etc/pki/nfs/client.key x509.truststore=/etc/pki/nfs/ca.crt Restart tlshd after any change: systemctl restart tlshd . 6. Mount # server authentication only mount -t nfs -o vers=4.1,xprtsec=tls,rw \ 10.0.0.100:/your-export /mnt/nfs-tls # mutual TLS mount -t nfs -o vers=4.1,xprtsec=mtls,rw \ 10.0.0.100:/your-export /mnt/nfs-mtls # verify mount | grep xprtsec What the wire actually looks like Connection bring-up: AUTH_TLS probe per RFC 9289 → TLS 1.3 handshake brokered by tlshd → encrypted NFS traffic on the same TCP connection. Operational notes Policy changes are not retroactive. Tightening a policy (turning TLS on, switching to mTLS, removing a cipher in use) does not drop or renegotiate existing connections. Affected clients need to remount or restart NFS. Same applies to CA removal/expiry. Server certificate must carry the VIF in SAN. Without a matching subjectAltName entry the client refuses the certificate; common symptom is a mount failure with Protocol not supported and tlshd logging a verification error. NFSv4.1 connection reuse amortises the handshake cost across many operations; NFSv3 mounts re-do the handshake more often, so the relative cost is higher on connection churn. Troubleshooting cheat sheet Symptom Likely cause First thing to check mount.nfs: Connection refused Policy enforces TLS, client mounts plain NFS, or tlshd not running systemctl status tlshd ; add xprtsec=tls access denied by server while mounting mTLS client cert missing/untrusted, or export rule mismatch journalctl -u tlshd -n 100 ; puredir export list Protocol not supported Server certificate SAN does not include the mounted IP, or CA not trusted openssl x509 -in server.crt -text -noout | grep -A1 "Subject Alternative Name" Useful diagnostics on the client: journalctl -u tlshd -f sysctl -w sunrpc.rpc_debug=0x7fff sunrpc.nfs_debug=0x7fff tcpdump -i any -nn -v 'host <file-server-ip> and port 2049' -w /tmp/nfs-tls.pcap # remember to restore: sysctl -w sunrpc.rpc_debug=0 sunrpc.nfs_debug=0 Appendix: a throwaway CA for testing For lab and PoC work it is much more useful to stand up a tiny local CA than to hand out self-signed certs. The workflow mirrors what you would do with a real PKI - the array trusts a CA, that CA signs the appliance certificate, and (for mTLS) the same or a different CA signs each client certificate. Anything below is for non-production use; do not reuse these keys anywhere you care about. Set a couple of variables to keep the commands short: mkdir -p ~/nfs-tls-ca && cd ~/nfs-tls-ca VIP=10.0.0.100 # file-server VIP the client will mount FQDN=nfs.lab.example.com # optional DNS name for the same VIP CLIENT_CN=client01.lab.example.com # only needed for mTLS 1. Root CA # 4096-bit RSA root, valid 10 years openssl genrsa -out ca.key 4096 openssl req -x509 -new -nodes -key ca.key -sha256 -days 3650 \ -subj "/CN=NFS-TLS Lab Root CA/O=Lab" \ -out ca.crt # inspect openssl x509 -in ca.crt -noout -subject -issuer -dates 2. Appliance (server) certificate The server certificate must include the file-server VIP in subjectAltName ; without it the client refuses the certificate during handshake. Add the FQDN as well if you have DNS for it. openssl genrsa -out server.key 2048 openssl req -new -key server.key \ -subj "/CN=${FQDN}/O=Lab" \ -addext "subjectAltName=DNS:${FQDN},IP:${VIP}" \ -out server.csr cat > server.ext <<EOF basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = digitalSignature, keyEncipherment extendedKeyUsage = serverAuth subjectAltName = DNS:${FQDN},IP:${VIP} EOF openssl x509 -req -in server.csr -CA ca.crt -CAkey ca.key -CAcreateserial \ -out server.crt -days 825 -sha256 -extfile server.ext # verify the chain and the SAN openssl verify -CAfile ca.crt server.crt openssl x509 -in server.crt -noout -ext subjectAltName Import this pair into the FlashArray as nfs-server-cert and reference it from the TLS policy as --appliance-certificate : # key first, then certificate, when prompted purecert imported create nfs-server-cert --key 3. Client certificate (mTLS only) openssl genrsa -out client.key 2048 openssl req -new -key client.key \ -subj "/CN=${CLIENT_CN}/O=Lab" \ -out client.csr cat > client.ext <<EOF basicConstraints = CA:FALSE keyUsage = digitalSignature extendedKeyUsage = clientAuth EOF openssl x509 -req -in client.csr -CA ca.crt -CAkey ca.key -CAcreateserial \ -out client.crt -days 825 -sha256 -extfile client.ext openssl verify -CAfile ca.crt client.crt 4. What goes where File Goes to Used as server.key + server.crt FlashArray ( purecert imported create nfs-server-cert ) TLS policy --appliance-certificate ca.crt (for mTLS) FlashArray ( purecert imported create nfs-client-ca ) TLS policy --trusted-client-ca-certificate ca.crt NFS client ( /etc/pki/nfs/ca.crt ) tlshd truststore ( x509.truststore ) client.key + client.crt (for mTLS) NFS client ( /etc/pki/nfs/ ) tlshd client identity ( x509.private_key , x509.certificate ) From here, finish with the Configuration walkthrough steps above: create the TLS policy, attach it to the file server, create the export, configure tlshd , mount with xprtsec=tls or xprtsec=mtls . References RFC 9289 - Towards Remote Procedure Call Encryption By Default RFC 8446 - TLS 1.3 tlshd(8) and tlshd.conf(5) manual pages Everpure FlashArray File Services administration guide (Purity//FA 6.10.6)6 Surprising Truths About Object Storage
This short, easy-to-consume article explains that cloud storage—especially object storage—is not just a bigger version of traditional storage but a fundamentally different system built for massive scale. It highlights key concepts like abstraction (separating how data is accessed from how it’s stored), the illusion of folders in a flat storage structure, and the power of rich, customizable metadata that turns storage into a searchable, automated platform. It also covers how Amazon’s S3 API became the industry standard, why objects are immutable (requiring full replacements instead of edits), and how low storage costs can be offset by expensive data retrieval fees. Overall, these design choices make object storage the backbone of modern cloud applications and data-driven systems.Why 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 | #dmitrywashere
