Cisco Compute Hyperconverged Reviews

Earlier in my career, I was part of Cisco's technical support as well as a technical leader within the Cisco support technology. Currently, where I am working, I have been a solution architect to design, plan, and migrate VM workloads to Cisco Compute Hyperconverged and off Cisco Compute Hyperconverged to cloud.

In the client's office, there are two specific data center regions, one in London, specifically with two geographical data centers maintained by Equinix vendor, which are LD3 and LD5. I have deployed around three Cisco Compute Hyperconverged clusters in LD5 being the active or primary site and another three DR hyperconverged infrastructure clusters in LD3 site which acts as a DR site, successfully replicating VM workloads from a primary to DR site using the VMware Site Recovery Manager with an RPO of five minutes or less.

Mostly, Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is deployed on-premises, with a couple of colo locations in San Jose and Ashburn managed through Cisco Intersight. All systems are within our own physical data centers managed by the in-house team.

One of the main advantages of using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is saving the cost of setting up an additional fiber channel or SAN storage adaptation, avoiding maintenance of separate endpoint devices, and support contracts. This allows us to reach out to Cisco alone for any support, thus avoiding the need to connect to different vendors.

In the last procurement, we reached out to Pure Storage for the SAN array and Dell for the SAN Connectrix switch acquisition. Looking at the overall cost for the initial capital expenses along with the three-year support contract, we saved around a million dollars with the setup cost being around 3.4 million dollars for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged setup, compared to 7 to 8 million dollars for traditional vendors, resulting in a savings of around 3 million dollars overall.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is a reliable system and it is very stable unless we plan to upgrade firmware or do a complete package upgrade. We have an inbuilt Cisco Compute Hyperconverged SRA adapter to directly replicate using the SRM orchestrator, which replicates the datastore volumes we create out of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged from active to DR site.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged SRA adapter is another package that we download and install on the SRM adapter. Instead of utilizing vSphere replication, which requires additional network setup and also additional licensing from Broadcom, we utilize Cisco Compute Hyperconverged inbuilt feature of replication between the active and DR site. This approach saves a lot of cost and also avoids additional adaptation of technology, making it smooth with near real-time replication between the active and DR site.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged has solid risk governance. Cisco provides technical specifications for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged clusters with recommended settings for securing the infrastructure, and ongoing vulnerability fixes from both Cisco and Broadcom ensure it is well-managed.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged can be managed from Cisco Intersight, and the alarms are generally effective, indicating the true status of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged clusters and underlying physical nodes. Although there are occasional false alarms, the overall monitoring and alerting setup is quite good.

Cisco has made the decision to come out of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, tying up with Nutanix for hyperconverged infrastructure software. I suggest streamlining the support for this product to ensure a single point of contact for hardware and software, which can improve customer experience.

When one of the nodes fails in the cluster and if you have to do a replacement, that becomes a tedious task that takes a toll on the team. Cisco should improvise the possible solution to replace a node and ease the addition of compute nodes into the existing cluster, making it a simpler process.

My overall experience in hyperconverged infrastructure, specifically in Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, is over six years, as I have been working since the year 2018 to date.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is stable.

Scalability of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged can be tedious. While you can add compute or storage resources, the process can be hindered by small anomalies on Cisco Compute Hyperconverged clusters, making my experience with scaling about 50-50.

Customer support with Cisco is generally good, as they involve their BU engineering team for in-depth analysis. Since issues do not require reaching out to multiple vendors, I find the support satisfactory. I would rate Cisco's customer support an eight.

We previously used Hyper-V for our VMs. We switched because maintaining Hyper-V licenses, Windows licenses, and the physical hardware became costly and resource-intensive, making it challenging compared to working with VMware and Cisco.

Implementation of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged saved us significant capital expenditure, eliminating the need for specialized resources for maintaining Hyper-V. This allowed existing VMware vSphere resources to easily transition and adapt to maintain day-to-day operations.

As part of the solution architect team, I compared the costs and setup of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged against other options, including Pure Storage and NetApp, to determine the pros and cons leading to the final decision.

Before choosing Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, we evaluated standalone servers with VMware ESX images and traditional SAN connectivity. However, the costs and complexities of maintaining multiple vendor contracts led us to select Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for its simplicity.

I would give Cisco Compute Hyperconverged a rating of seven out of ten. While Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is stable and runs without issue, the planning for upgrades or addressing critical vulnerabilities becomes a tedious task due to the need to address multiple packages. I would advise others to analyze their specific requirements when considering Cisco Compute Hyperconverged to ensure it aligns with their needs and cost. Smaller setups might benefit more from NAS or DAS options.

My main use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is for HyperFlex, where I develop and troubleshoot software for Cisco Catalyst Layer 3 switches, including the Linux-based control data plane component. I also work with Linux kernel device drivers, boot loaders, and system bring-up.

In my day-to-day work, I use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged to combine compute, storage, networking, and virtualization into an integrated platform, managing and troubleshooting VM and virtual infrastructure. I troubleshoot Linux systems and networking, monitoring CPU, memory, storage, and network performance.

I also use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged as an infrastructure platform, compute server, for cloud-based management and monitoring, and for data center networking and policy management.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged benefits our organization by simplifying infrastructure, combining compute, storage, and networking on one platform. It has easy, centralized management through Cisco Intersight, better scalability where resources can be expanded as business needs grow, and high availability, which helps keep applications and VMs running during hardware and component failure. It also offers flexible virtualization to support virtualized workloads in a consolidated infrastructure environment.

Since using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, I have noticed improved performance, which optimizes how compute, storage, and networking work together. The costing is very good, and we are saving a lot of time compared to different platforms.

The best features that Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers include combining infrastructure into an integrated platform, virtualization support, virtualized workload, and centralized VM management. It leverages Cisco UCS compute and networking capability distributed. The HyperFlex data platform has a distributed storage design for scalable virtual workloads and centralized cloud-based management, monitoring, and automation.

The most useful features for me are automation and monitoring, which simplify deployment, health monitoring, upgrades, and troubleshooting. Network integration is also valuable, where I integrate with Cisco networking and data center technology. Features such as data efficiency, including compression and deduplication, help optimize storage.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's governance and security are strong and easy to manage, providing centralized visibility, policy enforcement, and workload management for AI workloads running across the infrastructure. Security helps protect AI workload data applications and network traffic through integrated security control and access policy. Monitoring and compliance are very good, as it identifies anomalous activity, policy violations, and infrastructure risks.

Improvements for HyperFlex could include making it more reliable or easier to use, as sometimes new, less experienced people struggle to use it. When explaining keys and features, they do not easily understand. The performance also needs a slight increase by integrating compute, storage, or networking into a single optimized system. The product needs to improve scalability and reliability, with the most important aim being to reduce complexity.

While the costing is good, reducing the infrastructure cost would be better.

Regarding the accuracy of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's AI capabilities, I would not say it is 100%, but it is good, with results of almost 85%. It needs some improvement, but at least 90 to 92% would be more helpful for us.

I have been using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for the last three years.

In my experience, Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is stable and provides a very good experience.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged allows for infrastructure resources to grow as workload requirements increase, and the product is improving in scalability.

Customer support is good, they are helpful and always on time. As of now, I have not reached out to customer support because I did not need to. The feature is good, with not too much complexity, but I believe some colleagues have reached out when they found an issue, and I have heard customer support is good.

Before using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, I used Nutanix AHV, the Nutanix cloud platform, VMware, and HPE SimpliVity from HP in one organization.

While I have not saved much money with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, I believe time is money, so we have saved time.

Regarding pricing, the pricing is a little bit high, which I feel. The setup cost is good and generally similar to other platforms. The features they provide are good, extra reliable, and scalable, so the overall value is good.

I have evaluated other options before choosing Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, such as Nutanix AHV, the Nutanix cloud platform, and VMware vSAN. Both are also good.

My advice for others looking into using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is that there is not any complexity, so if they understand the basic things, they will easily be able to use and work on it. The complexity is not too high; it is short and simple. I would rate Cisco Compute Hyperconverged a nine out of ten.

I have only used Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for telecom equipment, specifically telecom network functions. I cannot comment on other applications, but when using the hyperscaler for telecom, particularly for Packet Core, it was a user plane function. In these user plane functions, we see degradation in performance. However, the control plane function, specifically EPC and Mobile Mobility Management functions, handles the tasks well with no concerns, although there are capacity issues in the user plane.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged has many valuable features in the open market. We selected Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for their specific product, which was the EPC. When we use the EPC product for Packet Core's high throughput, that is what we have utilized. Better products are available in the market compared to Cisco when considering features.

I have utilized the platform's security features, as those built-in security features are there. We used them, but we also tried to use external firewalls. Unfortunately, we faced some concerns, so we relied on their internal features. Regarding Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's data protection capabilities in terms of business continuity and protection, I would rate them as a nine, as there are no concerns concerning protection.

I see that the hardware side and performance concerns are prevalent, even in Cisco hardware used in the card platform. We have observed the same issues with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged platforms as well, indicating a performance issue.

Regarding the stability rating, it should be around seven because the support from Cisco is nice, but the performance of the product does not meet our preferences.

For additional features to enhance competitiveness, Cisco needs to improve their hardware utilization performance specifically. There is a significant gap between the throughput they recommend and what commercial enterprises experience, which is around a thirty percent gap.

If we talk about Red Hat or other external platforms, in that scenario, it is better for enterprises that want a complete support package to go with Cisco. However, if the enterprise has the capability to maintain in-house, it may be better to consider different hyperscalers. Another concern with Cisco is that they are trying to bind customers to specific hardware.

I have been dealing with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for around eight years, as we have used this hyperconverged solution for Cisco Packet Core. In Packet Core, we were using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged.

I have worked with Cisco Meraki vMX, but it is not being used by most enterprises because this product is required by higher-end enterprises where more than two thousand devices are needed.

I would rate the Cisco technical support team around nine.

Positive

Their pricing is acceptable because they are trying to match the market.

I have experience with Fortinet FortiGate and Cisco. I did work with FortiGate and Cisco.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged products I am dealing with mostly are DNA and SD-WAN, specifically Viptela. I did work with Viptela.

I have been dealing with Cisco as well as FortiGate.

Regarding Cisco, I did work for SD-WAN as well as SDN, specifically Cisco ACI.

I have been working with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged.

We never used virtual desktop infrastructure, so I cannot comment on that.

My overall review rating for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is seven.

Our major, primary use case is a virtualization environment. The main purpose is virtualization and better performance and scalability, which are the reasons we selected Cisco Compute Hyperconverged. The enterprise applications that perform well on Cisco Compute Hyperconverged are mostly Microsoft NAV and other file servers.

As a customer, the biggest advantage for me in the tool is the costing, and the second thing is the support. The specific features that stand out to me are almost the same. We are also using a VMware environment, specifically Dell VXRail, so there is not much difference between HyperFlex and Cisco Compute Hyperconverged; unified management helps to improve our operations.

Regarding security, Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is adequate, but we are not dependent only on Cisco Compute Hyperconverged security because we are using other security tools as well. The data protection capabilities ensure business continuity.

Although there are many advantages to the tool, an area for improvement in Cisco Compute Hyperconverged would be that the user interface could be more user-friendly; if you have basic knowledge, you can operate it.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is good already, but something that still has potential to improve would be the performance. Performance-wise it is good, but the negative aspect is the troubleshooting, as it takes too much time to resolve issues.

We have been using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged since 2015-16. We have been working with Cisco since 2015, and we started our career in hyperconverged infrastructure around 2008 or 2009.

When comparing these tools, the only difference I see is that Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is more stable than HyperFlex, and HyperFlex is more stable than others; but sometimes there are some issues in the synchronization in Cisco Compute Hyperconverged because it takes more time to resolve as compared to other virtualizations. Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is a 99% stable and reliable solution, but if any issues occur, then it takes too much time to resolve them.

Regarding scalability in Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, it is easy to scale, and scalability is adequate.

Regarding technical support from Cisco, I think technical support is adequate, and based on Cisco support, we have purchased Cisco Compute Hyperconverged. If I had to rate support from zero to 10 points, I would give them a seven.

They could improve by three points. First is the resolution time, as they should improve it, and transfers should be immediate if the problem is not resolved at the first level; sometimes they take too much time to transfer the call to the next level.

Installation is adequate; it is not very difficult.

We see value for money in this solution. If the system is working without any issues for five years and we are getting better performance, then we achieve ROI. Purchasing physical servers or other servers incurs multiple solutions, but there are some dependencies, and thus we have achieved ROI.

The cost for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is quite reasonable; the solution is reasonably priced.

We work with Cisco as a customer. We have some servers installed on AWS, specifically firewalls, but not Cisco. To evaluate the performance, we check the CPUs, memory utilization, and network performance with load and without load; these are the parameters we check. Summarizing everything we have discussed, I would give Cisco Compute Hyperconverged a rating of seven.

Our main use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged originally was for VDI for virtual desktop infrastructure, but nowadays we use it for VSI, which is virtual server infrastructure.

We use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for VMware and its tie-in to ESXi, hosting domain controllers and virtual server infrastructure for various different companies that we deploy it on.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is deployed in our organization as an on-premise private cloud, specifically for on-prem applications on on-prem servers, with everything accessed via on-prem, whether over a VPN.

We use Azure as a DR alongside our on-premises setup, but everything is not strictly all on-premises.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged has positively impacted our organization by making all applications run faster, and using their hardware has made our department look good by improving response times for web pages, SQL queries, data reporting, and day-to-day business operations due to its excellent performance.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers generally better performance than most other HCI solutions such as Nutanix, VX Rail, or any Azure local. It utilizes storage controller VMs to segment the data, writing and reading from the host onto the actual dedicated SVMs, and we have found that performance is generally better on Cisco hardware.

Performance differences with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged have shown up for our team specifically in virtual server infrastructure, where we have servers running on old infrastructure or another HCI provider and get certain benchmarks and performance metrics. Migrating those to Cisco Compute Hyperconverged with its better performance leads to significant improvements, helping SQL transaction queries and many different tasks due to the performance.

I do not believe Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is actually supported anymore; unless I am very much mistaken, HyperFlex is what I believe it is, and it was end of support and end of sale, so I do not know what improvements are going to happen.

When Cisco Compute Hyperconverged was still supported, I wished for upgrades to be nicer, as we always ran into issues. It did not matter what customer or version, we always had to call support on upgrades, and the workflow was just not intuitive, which led to long waits where we would have to restart servers, hosts, and controller VMs to continue, taking such a very long time.

We have been using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged since the 1.7 beta release and then deployed on the 1.8 into production.

I chose eight out of ten mainly due to upgrade issues. When it was running, it ran pretty solidly and robustly without many outages, even in cases of power loss.

I would rate Cisco Compute Hyperconverged an eight out of ten, possibly a nine, but probably eight. Performance-wise, it was leaps and bounds above everyone else, and once it was running, it was pretty decent despite those upgrade issues impacting my rating.

I do not believe there were any AI capabilities supported on Cisco Compute Hyperconverged.

We did not use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for any AI since it was not supported at the time.

My main use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is for the hosting of our data center.

A quick specific example of how I use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for hosting the Nova data center is for holding VMs for a number of government agencies and also the management of the network.

In my experience, the best features that Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers include its modularity, so besides just having a regular two U, one U servers, we also have a blade chassis.

The modularity specifically benefits my team or operations because in the case we had a blade chassis failure, we installed even more one U and two U servers to hold the load for the nodes.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged has positively impacted my organization by providing automatic failover and diversity of the failover which has helped us greatly in disaster recovery.

A specific situation where the automatic failover helped us during a disaster recovery scenario happened when the blade chassis failed, so the VMs that were currently hosted on the blade chassis were moved to the other compute nodes in the cluster.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged can be improved by addressing the learning curve and being open to more open-source software, such as Proxmox, specifically allowing use with Proxmox or even just basic Debian, rather than relying on VMware.

There seems to be a lot of aftermarket hardware on sale on eBay or other platforms, making it possible for persons preparing for their CCMP Data Center to buy this equipment, but hosting it on VMware may be a bit pricey, especially now with the whole Broadcom situation, so it should probably be able to open it and allow installation of Proxmox.

I have been using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged since 2019.

Initially, Cisco Compute Hyperconverged was not stable, but we have gotten it to that stage; I previously mentioned the blade chassis and a number of blades failing, as well as some cards being dead on arrival when the equipment initially came.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's scalability is very good; we have a number of different nodes in our cluster, and due to its modularity, that has saved us a number of times.

The customer support was a bit rocky, mostly due to the language barrier, as it seems we are supported by a lot of Latin Americans who speak Spanish and not really English, which is something that needs improvement; specifically, I work in the Caribbean, and I believe Cisco should get support for the Caribbean from people in the Caribbean.

We originally used HP, but during a significant Cisco deployment, everything kind of came from Cisco, which was probably the best bet we made.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been pretty good; we received a hefty discount for having a number of CCIEs and CCMPs on staff, and it has been a good experience with no complaints.

Before choosing Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, we evaluated other options; as I stated, we had an HP and Dell offering prior to going all Cisco, but later on, we switched to Cisco.

My advice to others looking into using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is to always scale it to as much as possible but leave room to grow; having such a good product leads you to wanting more, and if you have the room to grow, you will grow into it. I would rate this product an 8 overall.

Our main use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is to create a private cloud system, which requires a compute storage system. Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is one of the product lines that can utilize the same hardware box for compute, RAM, and storage, including hyperscale storage. Therefore, we are using a hyperconverged-based solution in our private cloud network.

In traditional private cloud deployments, we must have a compute node with compute and processor capabilities alongside minimum storage to run the system. Another storage unit is separate, where we have a smaller processor and compute but much larger storage capability. Cisco Compute Hyperconverged provides a hyperconverged solution where we can use one single box that consists of RAM, processor, and different types of storage altogether in a single solution. This helps us reduce the number of nodes per rack, improve control of our nodes, and because the storage is distributed among the same compute node, we can have lower power usage and minimize communication cabling to achieve optimal storage and compute output.

An additional use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is that since we are using a single node in the system to run Software-Defined Networking, we do not need to use many additional cabling. We can use the same node with much larger SFPs such as 100 or 400 GB hard drives. With these high capacity throughputs between hyperconverged nodes, we can easily create a very high throughput-based private cloud solution.

When we considered using the hyperconverged solution instead of traditional networking, a primary impact was simplifying our infrastructure management. It improves operational visibility and reduces complexity across compute, storage, and networking. This centralizes management and automation, streamlining routine maintenance, speeding up troubleshooting, and improving consistency. For the organization, this translates to better efficiency, easier scalability, and a more reliable infrastructure for business-critical workloads.

The main efficiency gains come from centralized management and simplified lifecycle operations, reducing manual configuration and troubleshooting efforts. Scalability is also much easier since compute and storage resources are in the same system and can be expanded as needed.

When considering the best features Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers, I start with simplifying infrastructure management, which is a major advantage. Scalability allows us to include more nodes and expand storage capacity. An integrated networking system is also one of the biggest features; we utilize an integrated switching solution to communicate between one hyperconverged system and another, alongside centralized automation through Cisco Intersight, which offers greater intelligence about the network data points.

The integrated networking system significantly benefits us, as traditionally, connecting to traditional networking increases the chance that system optimization cannot be tuned effectively. The dedicated integrated networking, which utilizes Fabric Switch for this hyperconverged solution, simplifies connectivity and troubleshooting across the compute and network layers. Centralized management through Cisco Intersight enhances visibility into hardware health, firmware status, and infrastructure operations, reducing manual checks, speeding up fault isolation, and making routine maintenance more consistent. From a network architect's perspective, the main benefits are better operational visibility and less complexity when managing large-scale infrastructures.

Initially, we noticed that the software and firmware upgradation of the hyperconverged system was very complex, necessitating downtime or a long process and making upgrades difficult. Over time, Cisco has simplified the upgrade process. However, I would like to see future improvements that include end-to-end automation for compute, storage, and networking, as well as proactive AI-driven troubleshooting and root cause analysis. Simplifying firmware is a major need, as timely upgrades are crucial, and greater visibility into network performance and bottlenecks should allow for better flexibility with third-party monitoring systems and automation tools.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged can improve by providing more transparency regarding lifecycle management and a predictable upgrade procedure, which would help reduce manual operational overhead in large-scale data centers and telco environments using this hyperconverged solution.

I have been using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for almost seven or more years.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers solid infrastructure integration and centralized management with good scalability. However, I would like to see further improvements in automation, troubleshooting visibility, and third-party integration, especially in terms of overall cost efficiency to make it more competitive for large-scale enterprises in telco environments. I rate this product seven out of ten.

Regarding Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's AI capabilities, I believe that governance and security are critical, especially in enterprise and telco environments. Strong role-based access control, audit logging, and encryption with clear separation between administrative privileges are essential. For AI capabilities, I look for transparent AI-driven recommendations that include human approval for high-impact changes, traceability of automation actions, and a focus on ensuring that AI improves operational efficiency without compromising security, compliance, or control.

AI capabilities and their output accuracy and reliability are especially important when AI provides infrastructure recommendations to help troubleshoot issues. I expect the output to closely match actual telemetry and configuration data. AI recommendations should clearly explain their reasoning, especially when high-impact changes are made, and I want to see reliability based on real operational results, rather than assuming every AI-generated recommendation is accurate.

We choose two public clouds, AWS and Microsoft Azure, alongside a private cloud implemented on-premises using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged.

For those considering using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, I suggest they carefully evaluate the total cost of ownership, workload requirements, and integration with their existing network and cloud infrastructure. Attention should be paid to scalability, high availability, backup and disaster recovery, and day-to-day management. In a hybrid cloud environment, they should validate the connectivity and security across on-premises and public clouds.

My main use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is for enterprise virtualization migrations, hybrid multi-cloud consolidation, and high-performance edge computing deployments.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged with Nutanix is the primary solution for enterprise virtualization migrations, hybrid multi-cloud consolidation, and high-performance edge computing deployments. I am using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged with Nutanix for virtualization migrations and multi-cloud purposes.

When we started using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, we observed a striking reduction in operational complexity and rapid virtualization cost optimizations, along with dramatic hardware and environmental consolidation, which are the main features we have observed since we started using it.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers unified cloud management through Cisco Intersight plus Nutanix Prism, which acts as a cloud-based operating platform that handles physical layers and firmware updates, hardware telemetry, while Prism orchestrates virtual machines and eliminates the need for localized management appliances.

When evaluating the AI capabilities for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged with Nutanix, it helps prevent data privacy and sovereignty in AI governance, zero-trust security such as infrastructure-rooted zero-trust security, and automated lifecycle governance.

The accuracy and reliability of Cisco AI capabilities are both good, and I am satisfied with the accuracy and reliability of its output.

While Cisco Compute Hyperconverged with Nutanix is highly regarded for its performance and cloud-like simplicity for real-world deployment, one area for improvement could be high entry and renewal pricing.

Support is good, but Cisco can improve the complex troubleshooting environments because making troubleshooting easier can lead to happier users and allow the IT team to work more efficiently.

I have been using Cisco Compute Hyperconverged for two years.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is ninety percent stable.

Scalability for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is good.

Customer support from Cisco is good.

I am a partner of Cisco technology, so we use Cisco first.

Fewer employees are needed with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, which is why we save money.

The pricing and setup cost are good, but when it comes to renewal, the pricing is costly.

I did not evaluate other options.

I would give Cisco Compute Hyperconverged an eight out of ten. I deduct two points for the pricing, renewal, and some troubleshooting complexity. I can advise that when a new organization starts, they can use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged to lower the number of IT engineers needed. My overall rating for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is eight out of ten.

My main use case for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged was for data center operations in a simulation lab for the United States Air Force.

A specific example of how I used Cisco Compute Hyperconverged in that simulation lab is that it was our full data center, and we utilized it to separate networks containing US and coalition forces, NATO forces, and to run aircraft simulation operations for pilots in a wartime situation.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is utilized in a data center environment in my organization that simultaneously supports eight different networks.

We did not use any cloud provider with Cisco Compute Hyperconverged; it was all on-premise.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged has positively impacted my organization because of the separation of networks and the security features that allowed us to run these networks simultaneously without bleeding over from a NATO network into a US network, and the hardware reliability never had any faults or failures.

The best features that Cisco Compute Hyperconverged offers are speed, reliability, and consistency.

These features stood out in my environment because, due to the high level of simulations that ran simultaneously on different enclaves, the speed in which Cisco Compute Hyperconverged assisted us without latency, failure, and overall reliability was impressive.

Based on my use of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, I saw no areas of improvement during my time utilizing it. I do not have any improvements needed for Cisco Compute Hyperconverged that come to mind, even small ones.

I currently do not use Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, but I have used it in the past for three years.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged is stable.

Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's scalability is very good, as it is scalable without interruption to production, and troubleshooting was minor hardware.

Prior to Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, we used a basic collapsed core network.

I have not seen a return on investment or any relevant metrics such as time saved or resources saved.

Regarding my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing, it was government technology, so the government paid for this technology, and cost was never an issue.

Before choosing Cisco Compute Hyperconverged, I did not evaluate other options.

I would rate Cisco Compute Hyperconverged a ten out of ten. I gave it a ten because it never failed us or me; there were some difficulties with the configuration of it, utilizing VXLAN technology, but once it was configured, it was very stable.

Regarding Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's AI capabilities, I never utilized the AI portion since they were secure military networks, and there was no cloud; cloud was not a function that we utilized or AI at the time. I have no thoughts regarding the accuracy and reliability of output of Cisco Compute Hyperconverged's AI capabilities since I have never used it.