HPE ProCurve Reviews

I have used S3 bucket to save files. I used the SQL database from AWS. We use AWS Relational Database Services (RDS) and EC2, which is Elastic Cloud Compute. These are the three services I have used from Amazon.

S3 Simple Storage Service is used for sharing videos and photos. We created a system where we process and comment on content. For the backend, we save the files in S3 bucket, and provide that link to the frontend for displaying images. That is what we use S3 bucket for, as it is a simple storage solution.

I have been using Amazon RDS database service for 4-5 years. It is a normal Postgres installation, which we use for storage purposes.

Amazon RDS itself is a product offering different relational database services. It includes DynamoDB for NoSQL databases, as MySQL and Postgres for relational databases. I have used relational database services in Amazon which provides backup capabilities. If we miss anything, we can immediately restore from a backup to retrieve the data.

We use DigitalOcean mostly for RDS services and cloud-related systems where we deploy codes and run them using Nginx, as it is more economical. We also use it to extract data and manage Linux-related schedulers.

Amazon RDS is easy to use. It is somewhat pricier but manageable. It has easy tasks and integrates smoothly with frontend components. When using IDE services such as PgAdmin, the installation steps are straightforward. The availability is also high, which is why we use it.

It offers easy scalability and migration between different configurations.

RDS performs well overall. The main consideration is pricing, which is higher compared to alternatives such as DigitalOcean. For backup and restore operations, it takes slightly longer - approximately 2-3 minutes compared to 2 minutes with other providers. There are also more steps to follow compared to other service providers.

The installation process is straightforward with no complex requirements. Users can directly select their desired database, memory requirements, and port numbers without complications.

Sometimes the machines get stuck or disconnected, requiring a restart. When connection issues occur, we need to contact the DigitalOcean service team to restart or reboot the system. There are issues even with 8GB RAM configurations.

Regarding DigitalOcean's performance, it deserves a 6 to 7 rating. When running bots, the system occasionally gets stuck, requiring reboots which result in memory loss and data loss. We frequently experience disconnections from instances and cannot reconnect without team intervention and system restarts. These issues necessitate maintaining backups to recover lost data.

4 years

I am only using AWS.

It is 60 to 70% stable, depending on usage intensity. For Linux-based systems with 8GB RAM or 4GB RAM configurations, it provided adequate stability for our needs.

There are no limitations in scalability. We can scale up or decrease resources as needed without issues.

We have adequate support available. For DigitalOcean, the support rating is lower compared to AWS because frequent need for service provider contact indicates underlying issues. The need to frequently contact support suggests we are not getting sufficient effectiveness from the service.

Positive

We have only used DigitalOcean Droplet feature, which provides virtual machines for deployment. The virtual machine comes with an IP address that allows data access from anywhere.

Amazon RDS is easy to use though slightly pricier. It provides easy tasks and integrates well with frontend components. IDE services PgAdmin can be easily installed and configured. The high availability makes it our preferred choice.

We have used AI services for Git-related deployments and Pull Requests (PRs) to verify if coding standards are maintained.

Return on investment depends on client requirements. They charge based on the services we use through their billing system. As a service provider, there is no direct return beyond the service utility.

We know DigitalOcean is more economical compared to AWS through conversations with DevOps teams. In AWS, as RDS tables and memory usage increase, the prices increase accordingly. For market-related sites, AWS pricing becomes significantly higher compared to DigitalOcean.

There are technical differences between the services. DigitalOcean has limited services compared to AWS. AWS offers vast number of services including AI services and IAM services. DigitalOcean primarily focuses on machine-related services.

It is easy to use and the main advantage is that we can connect to the system from anywhere directly. I would rate this solution 8 to 9 out of 10.

I use the solution in my company for ToR switching in the data center.

Frankly speaking, the switches are very good and have been running without any shutdowns for more than a year. HPE's team has already monitored the switches.

Network performance-wise, it is a good product. The network performance can be made simpler. A few areas included in the network performance managers can be integrated into the solution's dashboard since it is the only area with a few concerns. The network performance manager should be integrated with the dashboard.

I have been using HPE ProCurve for seven to eight years.

In terms of stability, I can say that the product has been running for two years. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

In my company, four to five people use the product.

My company does not plan to increase the use of the product since we use it only in the data center.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

There are no problems with the product setup and deployment processes.

I rate the initial setup phase a nine out of ten.

The product provides a user guide to help our company with the deployment part.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in one hour, while the configuration takes two days.

The product is reasonably priced.

I use HPE ProCurve network in our organization.

I can say that the product has improved the network flexibility in our company since I haven't seen any challenges from the last seven to eight years.

The most valuable product for network management revolves around the area of VSB, also known as virtual switch bonding, which can quickly attach two or three switches or make them come together to quickly form a single switch.

From a security perspective, my company does vulnerability assessment.

From a security perspective, my company does vulnerability assessment. Following the hardening guidelines, the switches are configured according to the hardening parameters.

The tool's reliability and uptime match our company's needs.

My company enjoyed configuring the switches a lot, especially since we saw similarities between Cisco's and HPS's configuration processes. HPE ProCurve is user-friendly.

We have a different product for network management, so my company doesn't use HPE ProCurve since we have already collaborated with some third-party products.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, especially since I have been using it without any issues for many years.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use the product to connect our headquarters with 32 branches in the country.

Inter-VLAN is a great feature. It makes restrictions for spoofing in certain ports. We also get very good logs about flapping ports that cause the network to hang up.

The product must provide something similar to Cisco’s command-line interface. People in my line of work prefer the command-line interface. When I work on Cisco, it feels familiar.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The product is very stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. My organization has more than 1000 users. All of them are working on switches and are connected to data centers all over the country.

The initial setup was great. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The deployment took three months.

To deploy the solution, we need to consider whether we need PoE switches. We also need to consider what kind of fiber optics ports we need. We need two people to deploy the solution.

The product has a good price compared to other solutions. I rate the pricing a six out of ten.

I might recommend the product for future projects in our organization. HPE ProCurve is a great tool. We can test it and use it. It has a great price, stability, and functionality. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We wanted a faster and more reliable network. While Cisco might have some advantages in complex switch management, HPE, and specifically ProCurve, offered easier configuration, deployment, and overall performance.

At the time we switched to ProCurve, segmentation was critical for us. It was easy to configure VLANs for network isolation and was straightforward with ProCurve.

It has supported our network expansion.

HPE ProCurve proved its value through the years, with performance and efficiency. And with stable upgrades which enhancing over all infrastructure.

Management options and secure management, that accelerate connectivity and working more actively.

The user interface (UI) could be better. Sometimes navigating through the switch interface to find specific features wasn't very intuitive. As an administrator, the layout could make it difficult to quickly locate settings. You might end up searching through various menus, which takes time. This gets easier with familiarity, but it can be challenging initially.

The command structure wasn't always as straightforward as something like Cisco. 

I have been using it for the last seven years. 

It is very stable. It will not be slow if you choose the right switches for your environment, which depends on how large your environment is and the nature of it. You have so many shared files between the GUIs. If it involves any transfer over the network, then the requirements might differ. For normal uses like email access, a simpler environment is adequate. I can say with confidence that it is very stable.

I'd rate the scalability as a nine. It's been excellent.

Iam quite satisfied.

Neutral

If I compare HPE to Cisco, D-Link, and Fortinet, it will come to stability, easiness with configuration, and also it will come to the performance. So these are the main things. And it supports that whenever any kind of support is provided, the switches will be very good.

It is easy to deploy. 

Deployment time depends on the complexity of your configuration. For a basic setup, expect around 30 minutes. However, more complex configurations, like segmentation, custom IP assignments, and other specific settings, could take up to one or two hours, including testing.

The resources required depend on the size of the infrastructure. In our environment, we typically have three to four engineers to handle the configuration and installation.

Ooccasionally, we also involve one or two technicians to assist with installing the hardware.

When it comes to integrating HPE ProCurve into our existing infrastructure, you need to specify the type of integration. Usually, it involves switches or other solutions. 

For example, if we integrate another vendor’s server into our environment, we must ensure it connects properly, perhaps through a middleware link. We plan for these features in advance in our switches. 

Typically, the process is smooth, though we occasionally encounter minor issues like light packet loss. Mostly, it's quite flexible.

If you continue with the same solution for a certain period, the ROI is quite high. You're saving a good amount of time because it provides very good performance and stability. It’s also upgradeable most of the time, allowing us to use the same infrastructure for a long time, like five years, without needing to change anything unless new technologies that require more advanced hardware emerge.

Compared to other competitors, the pricing is very good.

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with one being very cheap and ten being very expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

If you want a better environment, it’s crucial to consider what you need from your network before you encounter troubles looking for specific brands or unique product features. Determine why you need your network and what it will do. Then, you can find the product or solutions that meet these requirements. 

Most of the time, HPE will provide the most suitable and superior solutions in this regard. It performs well and offers the reliability you need. It also includes very good features; for instance, segmentation is an exceptionally useful feature because it allows you to isolate or allocate resources specifically. These are the most important things to consider.

Previously, we used non-HPE switches, but as we started adding more devices, like our camera system, to the network, we needed switches capable of Power over Ethernet (PoE), which HPE was offering at that time. It was a good experience to purchase, install, and integrate them into our environment; everything worked much better thereafter.

HPE ProCurve is primarily used for access suites. I have my end devices connected to my access point, including printers and IP phones. It is also used for distribution. 

My main concern is having a stable network, especially since we operate as an enterprise. I've been working with HPE products for four years, so that's not an issue. It's a basic setup for the distribution layer. 

However, I am currently planning to transition all these switches and implement Cisco. There is ongoing work in the background, focusing on the enterprise architecture and configuring everything accordingly. It's not yet completed. 

I will be utilizing switch stacking for our upgrade architecture and considering factors like VLANs, bandwidth allocation, power outage protection, and communication through LiveWeb Fiber. So, that's the plan in a nutshell.

I would like to improve certain aspects of HPE ProCurve. Specifically, I would like to focus on stacking. Additionally, in enhancing performance and addressing spam-related issues.

Perhaps, another area of improvement is optimizing the route advertising and routing between VLANs. It's also important to consider rating the calls and accessing additional features.

If we're aiming for an improvement, focus on enhancing security features in HPE ProCurve, particularly in terms of filtering. It would be beneficial to have some initial firewall features or mechanisms to safeguard resources. Additionally, maximizing high-speed capabilities and addressing aggregate needs would be important. That covers the key areas for improvement.

I have been using HPE ProCurve for around four years.

We use HPE ProCurve 2520 Series and HPE ProCurve 2530 Series.

In terms of stability, we have experienced good performance as we currently have low traffic volume. The utilization stands at around 4%, with an anticipated increase to 40% as we transition to cloud services. 

Considering this, I believe HPE ProCurve is a good option for replacement and a good choice for our network needs.

Scalability depends on factors like the number of new user groups and remote sites, as well as the applications being supported. However, I have successfully run a VPN and established a connection profile on it. 

In my experience, the scalability has been good. 

We have approximately ten users using HPE ProCurve in our organisaiton. We do not plan on increasing the usage. 

Regarding support, I haven't needed to use it for ProCurve as I haven't encountered any issues. 

However, if I do encounter a problem or need assistance with the switching program, I would contact my local supplier, who will take care of my needs. It's part of my SLA contract.

The initial setup is straightforward. It has an easy UI. 

We have higher-end technical personnel for handling deployment and maintenance tasks.

The deployment process was easy because I had one switch that had a hard failure. I simply needed to replace it, and I obtained an HPE switch as a plug-and-play replacement. 

There wasn't a specific protocol or extensive research involved in replacing individual switches. However, now I'm involved in a project for network refreshment.

I would estimate the ROI to be around 30%.

We do pay for licenses. It's a yearly license for Central Aruba. That's the licensing structure.

The pricing for HPE ProCurve is good compared to other vendors in the market. It offers competitive pricing.

Compared to Cisco, I prefer Cisco since Cisco is a leading brand.

It depends on the size of the company and the number of users, as well as the type of network they plan to deploy. 

In my company, we have successfully implemented HPE ProCurve as it aligns with our requirements. 

Generally, I would recommend HPE ProCurve. Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the product for VLAN configuration.

The product is robust. Once I get it working, I'm good to go.

The product could be cheaper.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have approximately 60 to 70 nodes. We have six people in our technical team.

The ease of setup depends on the efficiency level of the person deploying the tool. I use the web to configure my services. We can configure it how we want, depending on how we want to set up the switch and what we use it for.

We work together as a team. We do everything in-house.

The solution is expensive.

We evaluated products from HPE and Dell. HPE is easier to manage.

If an organization is financially capable of buying the tool, they can buy it. It might be beneficial in the long term. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for networking access. We need to connect, for example, every user in the building to the network. Generally, the users are not using more cables. They are just using Wi-Fi. We connect the users via Wi-Fi to the network of the company, and we also have this network access control which is one appliance that can verify the current situation of the endpoints. For example, if the device has the correct credentials to access the networking, if the device, for example, has the latest Windows updates, the latest antivirus updates, you can create your own routes to let the device in and access the network, or deny it, or put it in quarantine. You'll be able to access some remediation networks.

The network management solutions that they have is great. They use a multi-vendor approach. For example, you don't have to buy their equipment or their devices. You can buy from another vendor and then try to integrate with the network management system. The same is true for ClearPass. It's network access control. It's multi-vendor, and it's prepared to integrate with a lot of things. That this is the main advantage of the product. 

In our organization, we might have up to 20,000 people who need to connect to the network and access Wi-Fi. And not just inside the buildings, as they have remote access points, for example, that we can put in a home to provide the same or almost the same access to the network that you can get when you are in the office.

The solution is scalable.

It is a stable product.

We've found the setup to be pretty straightforward. 

The solution is very secure. This year, they may have only been one issue, whereas, for example, Cisco had maybe ten. It's very secure. 

The interface we have could be better. For example, Cisco is always looking to use the latest features that we can have for our front end. 

Some things we need to do manually. For example, we need to support an Excel file and do some filtering. In Cisco devices or in other brands, you have these filters inside the front end. We'd like them to generally improve the front end of the solution.

Sometimes, if you have legacy solutions, it doesn't integrate well with this product. 

Sometimes people complain about a lack of features and will instead want to try Cisco or Huawei. 

I started using the solution in 2016 or 2017.

We always try to focus on stability. Sometimes the newer versions are difficult to control.

For network security, it is not so easy, however, for connectivity, it is easy.

We don't have anything to complain about in general with the stability. It's been good. 

The solution is scalable. 

We have about 35,000 people using the solution. 

I've dealt with support. They've been helpful and responsive. 

Positive

I'm also familiar with Cisco. Compared with other solutions in the market, this product is great. We use Juniper as well.

I don't handle the initial setup. I participate in the decision. However, I'm not responsible for projects nowadays.

The initial setup depends on the solution. For networking, for example, connecting people is easy; however, to secure the connection is not easy in every solution. If you go to any vendor, you need to have a lot of plans.

Nowadays, the solution is easy to implement. I'd rate the solution four out of five in terms of ease of deployment. 

We have a dedicated team for maintenance. Nowadays, everybody complains about security. Therefore we have a dedicated team to do the patching and stuff like that. We are using multi-vendor solutions to do patching. However, we need to patch everything almost every day. 

Cisco is expensive. This solution costs less than that. 

The company I work for is a partner. 

We are not using the latest version of the solution. Generally, in production, we don't use the latest version as sometimes the latest version has some effort.

At our organization, they are moving to the cloud towards network management solutions like Google Central, however, nowadays, they are using everything on-premise now.

If they are changing devices, I'd advise any user to map all the features they have in the environment. Sometimes when you migrate, for example, if you don't map the technology after the implementation, you say, "but this is not working." Maybe you forgot to configure something. Without mapping, it will be hard to pin down issues. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Our entire network is controlled by HPE ProCurve. Essentially, we have an MPLS as part of our MPLS network. There are numerous use cases I can describe, but there is nothing I can say in detail right now.

We have a huge network with a lot of servers. Our operation is small but we need the network infrastructure.

It has valuable features. It has an excellent menu system where you can use both the CLI and a menu system and the GUI version. They have three options for manipulating, updating, and changing the switch, which we like.

In general, the CLI functions similarly to the Cisco iOS. Except for a few core Cisco proprietary functions, they have most of the functions.

If you're familiar with Cisco iOS, you won't have to worry about their ProCurve. That's what we like about it. Also, it basically controls, layer three and layer two, we use both functions on it, and it has a lot of routing for us as well.

It does a good job for us. ProCurve CLI is very similar to what Cisco allows you to do with their CLI on iOS.

It is not difficult to work on the transitions or if someone is working on both. The commands don't differ all that much.

There is one proprietary function they lack, and I can't remember what it was called, but it monitors the ports, and then every 10 seconds if the port is down, it can divert the traffic somewhere else. I'm not sure what they call it. Cisco uses this method. However, the HPE ProCurve does not provide that.

Essentially, you monitor reports and, if ports are down, you simply, divert the traffic somewhere else. If something goes wrong, they don't do it unless you manually go in and update. Because we have a double and triple backup link. And this is the only one where we need to add a Cisco switch to the network in order to keep track of the traffic. If our main MPLS fails, it switches to another tunnel. As a result, we are still in contact with our other offices.

I've been using HPE ProCurve for more than five years. Since I started working for this company. It was in place long before I joined.

This product is very stable. In the time that I have used it, over the past five and a half years, it's been rock solid.

We have a modular system. We update or upgrade it whenever we want to. There are 96 ports, and two of them are stacked together, for a total of 192 ports.

The traffic runs well between the two units.

Although we are a small operation, we have a large network with many servers.

When I get stuck, I call the consulting service company that originally installed it. However, I can also call HPE directly and deal with them. Generally, they are good.

HPE's technical support, overall, is very good. They respond quickly and they give proper solutions. When you give them a time that you want to speak with them, they're very good at that. Most of the time, their immediate supervisor or manager will contact me to try to find out the status. They want to know how we felt about the service.

Nowadays, they send an automated survey, and sometimes, a person will call to personally ask how the service was, and how the technicians were to deal with it.

We have Cisco, HPE, Palo, and SonicWall. I believe those are the major brands we use for our switches, firewalls, and routers.

Before using ProCurve it was a Cisco switch, but we decided to go with this one. This decision was made before I entered this organization.

It was, I believe, layer two switches with 3750 Cisco routing capabilities, layer three switches, and a combination of all of those. But, as I previously stated, I'm not sure what the exact situation was, or what was in place before I walked in.

We also work with HPE Comware 1950 switches, which operate on a different operating system than ProCurve.

They are primarily intended for these layer two switches. They also provide layer three functions for the majority of it, but their CLI functions and terminologies differ. 

Their login process is different. They are mostly GUI-based, and they don't like it when you use CLI. 

There is an SLA monitoring feature, which Comware, ProCurve, or any HPE suite does not provide because they are Cisco proprietary. As a result, we must rely on bandaid solutions such as putting a Cisco switch in front of it to route traffic back and forth.

The only HPE products we use are the HPE layer three ProCurve switch and layer three switches ProCurve, and layer two is the Comware switches.

We do have SonicWall firewalls, and they are good to work with. We work with the TZ version. We have TZ 400 and TZ 500.

I have been working with them since I joined; I wasn't aware of it before I joined, but as soon as I did, I learned about it and now manage it; those are remote site firewalls that come routerly installed.

I have been working with them for approximately five years.

It's remote, which means we have four more remote facilities. All of their local firewalls are SonicWall. They are a component of our MPLS. 

It is a somewhat complicated network. They are a component of our MPLS. Their internal traffic comes here to headquarters, but their external traffic goes through SonicWall, which is located on the other side of the world.

We have that SonicWall firewall to control their external traffic.

With TZ, the most valuable feature is their management. It is very easy in the sense that they have completely GUI versions, and they barely use CLI. It is very interactive and easy to use. 

Whatever you want to set up, whether it's a failover or an SD-WAN, it's extremely user-friendly, which is a feature we appreciate.

There isn't anything that needs to be improved. They are good at responding. 

They provide excellent technical support. They are very good at responding to any questions or concerns we have. We have no major issues with them.

The initial setup is very complex. There were a lot of hiccups at first, which is because it is very deep and complex. However, the configurations are very user-friendly due to the three different options for how you can manipulate them.

Even if you're not too familiar with ProCurve, language, and the terms, you can go through the menus and then manipulate the switch. It's very powerful.

Only one person is required for maintenance. I maintain it for the company. 

The only thing that is handled externally is the backup, which is done by a consulting company. They were the ones that install it, perhaps seven or eight years ago. They are at the backend and I can contact them if I get stuck but generally, I take care of most of it.

We have an annual support subscription.

They provide free support during normal business hours. All of their switches include that, but we do purchase extended support from them, which includes 24-hour support.

I was never involved in the pricing. The majority of these are automatic renewals until we decide to redesign or replace our equipment.

As I previously stated, I inherited this. I didn't have much of a choice when it came to revamping the entire thing from scratch, which isn't an easy solution.

Most of the time, when you are looking for a solution like that, my advice is to look at all of the functions available, compare between Cisco, primarily this Cisco and them for layer three and layer two traffic, and determine which functions you are looking for. 

If the functions are available, you use them. Know if you are looking for simple management. 

Cisco is difficult to manage because the majority of its devices are CLI-based. And while many people are not comfortable with CLI, others are, and some only want it. Some people, however, are not. 

I only want CLI, but the other two options they have available are useful in an emergency.

It is difficult to say what you want because, there are some functions that the HPE ProCurve switch does not have, for which we had to add a convoluted appendage solution, such as adding a Cisco 3750, and 3850 to fix the monitoring problem.

As it does not have all of the options that we are looking for, I would rate HPE ProCurve a seven out of ten.

The HPE ProCurve, we've used mostly with businesses, either enterprise networks and/or some manufacturing. We've worked and used the solution in a core setup and edge switches.

One of the biggest things in HPE ProCurve that I like, though not necessarily a feature, is the HPE warranty because it's probably better than any of the other vendors that we deal with, as it has a lifetime replacement. Feature-wise, the web interface of HPE ProCurve is typically pretty good and I like that as well.

An area for improvement in HPE ProCurve is the web interface not being as robust because you still have to go to the COI to make modifications or look at the exact configuration.

I've been dealing with HPE ProCurve for quite a few years now.

HPE ProCurve is a stable product. We've had issues with POE switches, particularly the POE ports burning up, but without POE, HPE ProCurve is pretty much a "put it in, let it run" type of product.

HPE ProCurve seems to be scalable because my company went four or six as far as the number in a core stack before, but the product has been fairly scalable to do distribution to a lot of edges.

The technical support for HPE ProCurve has been good, but mostly the issue my company had was burnt out or equipment failure and support has been very good to get to the point of shipping a replacement switch quickly.

The initial setup for HPE ProCurve is easy. It's pretty good because, from the factory reset with a console cable, you can set an initial IP address and be up and running fairly quickly.

I've seen ROI from HPE ProCurve, but I couldn't really give a good number on that.

The licensing for HPE ProCurve is a one-time cost, though it's varied somewhat. What my company purchased was usually between $3,500 and $5,000 one-time cost.

HPE had started migrating to the Arubas, or at least in the market that my company deals with a while back, so that's pretty much all that my company has been dealing with lately, particularly the HPE layer three switches that replaced the HPE ProCurve. HPE pretty much replaced a lot of the product line with Aruba, so my company works with Aruba switches from HPE, and that's the HPE ProCurve now. It's what HPE migrated to, particularly with the small to mid-market businesses here.

In terms of the number of users of HPE ProCurve, one of the larger systems my company deals with has around five hundred users. For maintenance, there's typically just one person, so it's a low-maintenance product.

My advice to others looking into implementing HPE ProCurve is that it's a fairly good platform because my company does about four or five other different systems, but one of the biggest things with HPE ProCurve is that its web interface will get you 95% there, but you still have to know or learn the CLI commands to be able to do what you need when you get into more complex scenarios with VLANs and trunking and core aggregation.

I would rate HPE ProCurve nine out of ten.

My company is an integrator of HPE ProCurve, but it doesn't have a formal partnership with HPE, unlike what it has with Dell, Cisco, or some of the other brands.

HPE ProCurve is used mostly in business networks.

The most valuable features of the solution are its stability and the web page that allows me to monitor it.

My company switched from HPE ProCurve to Ubiquiti UniFi since we wanted one solution for our entire network. In general, HPE ProCurve should have more capabilities to offer. HPE ProCurve's web interface is old, and I have to log in on each device separately, making them the product's shortcomings that need improvement. With Ubiquiti UniFi, I have my login page where I can see every network on every company I manage.

I have experience with HPE ProCurve. I don't remember the version of the solution I use, but I know it's an old one, and I still use it.

The product's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The product's scalability is good.

My company does not need to avail of the services from the solution's technical support.

The initial setup of HPE ProCurve is straightforward.

We have carried out the solution's setup phases in our company for the past six to seven years.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Regarding the solution's installation phase, I can say that it is a PnP device.

Regarding the deployment process, you just need to use the screws to install and tighten the product in your work environment.

There is no requirement for someone to be involved in the maintenance and deployment of the solution.

I am the consultant who carried out our company's product installation process.

There is no need to pay for the solution's license.

My company switched to another brand from HPE ProCurve. The platform we chose has more capabilities for management when compared to HPE ProCurve.

To those planning to use the product, I would say that it is a very good and stable switch.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.