Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

Our installation is totally on-premises. It is a backend solution supporting the entire campus. This is used as a three-tier network for our overall networking. We use it as a call switch at the backend, it is also used in the distribution, and it is used on the server farm switches. We use them for these three different kinds of purposes in the data center at the same time. All these servers can function on the network through these switches.  

The improvement the product provides to our organization is the backend throughput over all the sites. It can give us about 1.4 TB backend throughput overall. We have variable multi-gate support through the ports. So we can connect on the same switch with the 1G, 10G, 25G, 40G, and 100G. In that way, we get multi-port throughput on the same switch. Because of this capability, scalability is not a bottleneck for us now.  

We have used Cisco Catalyst Switches to achieve our goals with stability and blanket level of performance. The documentation and help capabilities provided for users are transparent and widely available. You can find and read about solutions to fix your own issues. Virtually anything you want to study about the product or if you want to verify something, information about it is available and doesn't require calls to support and potential wait times.  

The volume possible with the throughput is the feature that is most valuable to us. It helps to get things done. For example, we can program the logic and can get more details through the SDM (Service Desk Management) to deliver a better level of support to users.  

The solution is good but the support from Cisco makes it that much better. Even the task of logging into the system is really good. All those things together boost the end user's confidence in the product and performance.  

One thing I think should be improved is that billing should be customizable for end-user. If the customer wants a particular feature or upgrade or does not want the feature or upgrade, it should be their choice. If the user rejects the additional services those should be cut off from the pricing and not forced on the billing. Instead, they just include these things and the end-user has no choice. That is a concern for end-users who are trying to be cost-conscious and know what they need — and what they do not need — in their environment.  

We have been using the Cisco series since incorporating an older series about six to seven years ago. Right now, we are revamping our architecture with the new series that has the Cisco DNA (Digital Network Architecture). It is the latest solution in the Cisco Catalyst Series. We can use multi-gate ports and 100 GM port gate uplinks with the latest high-availability features along with DNA and deploy the latest technologies.  

The stability of the product is quite good. Cisco is a brand that developed a reputation by taking care of the reliability to perform at least as well as any product on the market. The support level also contributes to that stability. Because they give me all the details, all the documentation, all the product details, and they supply that in a good manner, we can get the things that we need to resolve any issues as soon as possible. They are well aware of the product they deliver and we easily benefit from their knowledge and willingness to help keep our systems running.  

My impression of the scalability is that it is there if you need or want it. But some scalability is also built-in. We are getting the multi-gate switches, and the multi-gate can be scaled. If you have a 10G right now, you can change to 25G later, then 40G even after that. You have opportunities to scale out in different always. In our case, we already knew what we planned to do so we had already thought that through. 

As far as handling a volume of users, all the traffic of our whole organization is going to be passing through these switches. These switches are deployed on the call side, the distribution, and the server farm. Because of the setup, the whole of my data center and any user accessing the system is passing through it. We are a large educational organization and we have between 30,000 to 40,000 users total. On a daily basis, there will be 20,000 users on the system.  

Technical support from the support team is good. Overall with the availability of documentation and resources, it is great. For me, on a scale of one to ten, it would be between seven to eight.  

We did not really use a different system. We were using a Cisco solution already and just upgraded to the newest version of the product so we could have its advantages.  

The setup is not very complex. You will spend more time planning the concept than in installation. We need to migrate the things and the migration is not a complex one. We had some new features to incorporate but this was not hard.  
 
If you include all the testing and the proof of concept, the deployment took around about a month. We just needed to get the things for new features tested and working. We did need some support from the OEM team, but it was not on site.  

For maintenance and management, we did not need anything additional as that was already done by our team. We have about two or three people only. One who sometimes shares some responsibilities, so it is two, only, full-time.  

Because we have a good team in the organization already who were already familiar with the previous equipment and we have good access to support materials use an integrator, we did not need a reseller or a consultant to help with the deployment.  

I am not exactly sure of the final cost of the upgrade as we are still just finalizing in terms. The teams have to finalize the pricing and their exact needs. They have not placed the entire order yet. We should have the whole thing completed in one or two months.  

One thing I am sure of is that the pricing is a little higher for the new product on average. 
It is also a little bit higher than its competition. That includes any competition with Cisco in this category of solutions, like Juniper, Dell, or anyone else. But the thing is if the customer wants the kind of reliability, support, and transparency that a solution provides, then they need to pay a premium for it.  

Advice that I would give others who are not using this Cisco solution is that maintenance is not a big deal for Cisco products. They deliver on customer support if it is even necessary at all. The Cisco team is always available to provide you the facts about the root cause of any problem or to answer any question. Because they have an excellent knowledge base, you can even research things and find solutions on your own.  

Whether you need this kind of dependability will have to do with your use case. If you are working on some kind of critical industry or environment, you can trust Cisco to be a reliable solution. But if you do not have very critical operations, you want to review other options. Cisco might be a solution you would pay more for and you do not really need it. If you do not need it, then you can go with another product like Juniper or Dell — or any vendor or solution that can supply the services and capabilities that you actually need. But knowing that depends on evaluating your situation and the reality of what you need to do.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches in terms of technology and all the capabilities as a whole as a seven right now. It is a seven to me just because there are problems that I see. The consideration of the rating is just not about the technical capabilities and documentation which are excellent. The problem is that they charge you for what they have supplied that you wanted as well as what they make it mandatory to buy. In the licensing, they include licensing for architecture, for new parts, for the software design, and for the future scheduled upgrades they have over the term of the contract. All these additional things are bundled in the licensing costs. The end-user can not exclude things from the license when you license the new switch. So even if there are items that you feel are not required for you as an end customer, they go on the billing.  

We use this solution for LAN connectivity. We also use it for routing capabilities. It can become an L3 switch.

Cisco has a well-maintained library of maps and features that we use to monitor. 

One of the most valuable features is the IP SLA feature that allows you to connect the routes or to switch the routes when there is static. Also, the flow exporter tells you which host is using a lot of traffic or where they all are transferring data.

It gives you transparency into your network.

It supports multicast routing. We use Ganglia to monitor the Condor Grid. Ganglia transmits statistics that are multicast. Because it has multicast forwarding routing capabilities, it is also usable.

IP SLA or NetFlow are things that are presented in Catalyst and are extremely easy to use.

It also supports QoS. Basically, it can configure layer 2 or layer 3 QoS to prioritize the traffic that we want.

They have a robust monitoring system.

Most of the time, I struggle with the bugs. I don't find it very challenging to configure these because I have been using them for the last eight years, so I am pretty comfortable with the CLI. With these bugs, I don't know the configuration for a one time task, you configure it, you deploy it, and you forget about it.

The biggest issue we are having is with bugs and memory loss, which occurs when developing the IOS.

We also had an issue with Nexus 3548. The CPU started stalling and the switch became unresponsive. We had to call support and have someone remove that cable immediately, as we are not able to travel due to the COVID situation. Once the cable was removed, the switch came back to life.

I searched through the log and learned what happened. The CPU was stalled for 11 seconds. I searched Google and on the Cisco bug tracker, and I found that it was a bug. There is no workaround for that. It was a huge loss for us and we lost money as a result.

There was nothing that I could have done to prevent this from happening. This is a management interface that is supposed to be used to manage the device. I connected the cable not knowing that the bug existed.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for eight years.

We are going to be upgrading to the latest version because there are a few bugs in the release that we are currently using. We are facing issues with it causing the memory to be depleted. The bug is in the operating system itself.

Despite the bug issues we are facing, it is a stable solution. It is partly our fault as we have not upgraded to the newer version.

This solution is scalable. I don't think that it is stackable, but with a recent Catalyst that we have purchased, it provided four 10G uplinks.

Catalyst is installed in a central location. Everyone who connects to the company network goes through a Catalyst switch, one way or another. The switch is placed strategically so that we have the data of every incoming and outgoing connection. There can be 100 to 200 users.

We raised a case with the memory leak issue that we were facing and they said that we will need to update our device. In general, they are very good at what they do.

The initial setup was extremely simple. We are engineers and know the plan beforehand how it will be used, how many ports will be used, what kind of configuration it will have, where the ports will be connected, and where the device will be mounted.

It's easy for us to configure and deploy. It takes two to three hours.

The device goes into the co-location center, where our cabinets are. The switch is mounted and we configure a management IP on that interface. 

The deployment doesn't always involve us, as we are not always able to travel to the locations. Instead, we ask them to contact the vendor to install and connect the device.

The implementation is done through a vendor and our team.

They install licenses for 24 ports and then an additional 24 ports. The client is able to use the 48 ports or just 24 port if they want.

The cost of a license before COVID and before the lockdown was approximately three lakh 70,000 in Indian Rupees. After this COVID situation, the cost has gone down to two lakh 46,000 rupees.

The additional cost depends on where the device is being installed. If it's shared then we have to pay the rent for that cabinet where the device is being installed.

The device has only the chassis cost and the licensing cost.

In two or three years, we renew the support contract and that is an additional charge.

Our environment includes a heterogeneous network. It's not all in the same place geographically, where some of the servers are in India, some are in Delhi, some are in Mumbai, London, Chicago, and Brazil.

The monitoring of the device is in the day-to-day operations.

We don't have a lot of traffic, we run simulations. We need high-capacity servers. In terms of network devices, we don't need much. When we need better switches or better devices, we have Nexus. They are used so that there is the lowest latency possible and maximum throughput.

We have point-to-point lead lines to connect to those sites, as well as architect tunnels.

Overall, it's a very robust switch and it's very nice.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I design, implement, and troubleshoot networks that use Cisco switches. I am involved in every part of the design, including wireless.

The biggest advantage of having this solution is that it is easy to find engineers, and they are cheaper than hiring HP engineers. HP engineers are difficult to find and you have to train them, which brings up the price of an HP solution.

Cisco switches are really expensive compared to other solutions, which is something that should be improved. They are almost double in price.

As of late, Cisco has been moving from one technology to the next and they don't support each other. If you want new features then you have to buy a new product and forget about the old one. This is from a licensing perspective. For example, the Cisco DNA license versus then Cisco One license are things that I don't know about.

I would like to see better compatibility between Cisco and other vendors. There are a lot of features that are for Cisco devices only, and when you bring in a second or third vendor there are a lot of problems. Fixing this incompatibility would be an improvement. I have not tried a lot of other brands, but I have connected both Huawei and Aruba Wireless with Cisco. Connecting Huawei with Aruba Wireless works well with no hangs. However, connecting Cisco and Huawei is terrible. Sometimes you have to restart one, whereas other times you have to restart the other. I do not recommend mixing equipment between these two companies.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst switches for close to 11 years.

If the switch is set up properly in the first place then you don't need to come back to do anything with it. This is especially true with the Catalyst 3750. It is the most stable thing in the world. I have found that some of the newer switches will hang or lose their configuration, but this never happened with the 3750.

For example, I have faced a lot of problems with the 3850, especially if there are Aruba access points. Sometimes, it will just reject the access point, although when I bring a new one, it will allow it. Sometimes the VLAN, itself, hangs. Then you can put in another VLAN and it will work. There are a lot of mysterious things that I could not find an explanation for.

I have not faced any problem with scalability.

In my opinion, the Catalyst switches are for enterprise-level organizations with 5,000 or more employees. If there are 1,000 or fewer employees then any switch will manage.

Some of the places I have worked in had networks with 20,000 to 70,000 users. 

I have not contacted technical support from Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have received support but I just keep reading, then trial and error until I get it. I wouldn't want to pay for support if I don't use it. The only time I would require support is a hardware failure.

I have worked on two projects in the past where support licenses were purchased for a year. What I found was that I could purchase four additional switches and in total, they would cost less than the support. Those switches then go into storage and if one of the others fails then a replacement is available. Ultimately, it is much, much cheaper.

I have always used Cisco networking solutions, although we are opening a new branch and I think that this time, we will use HP. They do not want to pay one to two million dollars for IT infrastructure. With HP, if they have to pay half a million then they will approve it.

I have experience with a hybrid environment where it was a Cisco LAN and an HP Aruba wireless LAN, and I didn't like it. I was losing some great options. Based on that experience, I think that all of the hardware should be from a single vendor. Either Cisco all the way, or HP Aruba all the way.

It is very easy and very straightforward to set up and deploy. It takes maybe 15 to 30 minutes to get it working.

The price of Cisco equipment is very expensive and you have to pay extra for support.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to design the system well before deploying it. You have to consider all of the aspects and all of the options. Always beware. If there is a 1% chance of failure then consider it to be a 90% failure rate because when it fails, you will have options. Always have a plan A, B, C, and D. In my experience, sometimes all of the plans will fail, and sometimes the first one succeeds.

I can't give them a perfect market but they undeniably are of good quality.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution is capable of high-quality L2 & L3 switching at several different layers of our enterprise with a high rate of availability and reliability.

It has excellent dynamic routing capabilities. We manage a large WAN environment that requires the use of OSPF.

Cisco Catalyst Switches perform these two functions very well.

The most valuable feature of this solution is managed switching.

We rely on heavy segmentation to secure and isolate several business units.

The dynamic routing capabilities are excellent.

Licensing is somewhat expensive and should be improved. Cisco should provide customers with a more advantageous licensing model included with the purchase of the equipment.

They have done some good by providing low-cost multiyear DNA center licenses with the purchases and have increased the number of benefits provided with the HW warranty, but must still work on lowering smart-net cost.

This solution is extremely stable.

The technical support for this solution is excellent. They are very knowledgeable, courteous, and adamant to meet their SLA.

I have used non-Cisco equipment, especially in the IoT environment of this municipality. In my experience, the competition falls short when it comes to features and reliability.

In the enterprise environment, there are several others that compare to Cisco and it is up to you to pick the right solution for your environment. For me, it is all related to budgeting, previous environment, expertise, and training needs.

The initial setup of this solution was simple. I included professional services and cross-training for my team.

We have experience in both cases.

 More complex and mission-critical deployments are handled by consultants. Less complicated deployments are handled by our staff.

ROI for this solution is excellent.

My HW lifecycle schedule is seven years. Some of these switches stay in production and performing ultimately for ten years.

Try to buy everything you need in bulk purchases and ask Cisco for volume discounts.

Prior to choosing this solution, I evaluated the IoT environment Antaira, Cradlepoint, and Sierra Wireless. Cisco's solution was superior.

In an enterprise environment, I have evaluated Juniper, Extreme, and HP. Cisco's solution fit my operational, budgeting, and logistic needs better.

This is a solid solution.

When choosing them vs others, it all depends on your budgeting, previous environment, expertise, and training needs.

The product is reliable. The performance is good.

The product could be more user-friendly. The tool is not easy to manage or integrate.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. We need to dive into it and know what we're doing. It's not straightforward. We can’t just go to the web GUI and check.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. We need to know the command lines to expand them. It is not GUI-based. The number of users varies from 100 to 5000. The usage depends on the requirements.

We have to go through a long process. It is not quite straightforward.

Neutral

We used other solutions before. We chose Cisco because of its reliability. The choice also depends on the cost versus the performance of the solution.

The initial setup was complex. The deployment takes an hour.

The price could be improved. We must have a relevant partnership with Cisco.

Overall, I rate the product an eight or nine out of ten.

We are using this solution on-premises and in the data center; it enables us to access switches. We have several hundred users.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than five years.

It works well.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a scalable solution.

Cicso Catalyst Switch's technical support is one of the best. They are very fast and knowledgeable.

The setup is straightforward for people that know about Cisco Catalyst Switches. For a normal switch, it takes one hour to deploy.

We were able to implement the solution on our own. We have three Network Engineers on our technical team that handles the deployment and maintenance.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is smart networking; we have a yearly licensing subscription. It is one of the most expensive solutions, however, it is one of the best.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for the virtualization infrastructure and for bare metal platforms.

We are satisfied with the solution's performance so far.

The stability has been perfect.

The solution can scale.

It is a very easy solution to use.

We have found the installation process to be very simple. 

The pricing is quite good.

The delivery dates need to be more expedient. This could be improved. Right now, when we need to buy a new Cisco Switch, we may have to wait a few months. It could be as much as six months sometimes. It's far too long of a wait.

I've been using the solution for a few years at this point. 

So far, the solution has been very stable. The performance is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability of the solution is quite good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We have hundreds of users that are leveraging this product.

At the moment, we do not have plans to increase usage.

We've never contacted technical support in the past. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

A very, very long time ago we used HP Brocade Switches. W removed over to Cisco mostly due to the fact that there is a very rich knowledge base over the internet. Also, the implementation is pretty straightforward and the commands are pretty easy to follow. 

When it comes to the initial setup, the solution is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult.

How much time it takes depends on the configuration, specifically the complexity of the configuration for the Cisco Switch. Most of the time, a few days are enough for any configuration.

Two engineers are enough in terms of handling the initial setup.

We were able to set up the solution ourselves, in-house. It's not a complex process, and therefore, we did not need outside help from integrators or consultants.

There is a license that is paid with the Switch when you are buying the Switch.

It's reasonably priced.

I'm not sure if we are using the latest version of the solution, although we are often handling product updates.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The main use of Cisco Catalyst Switches is for enterprise networking.

Cisco Catalyst Switches should have better performance and be easier to use. Additionally, they should add artificial intelligence features.

I have used Cisco Catalyst Switches within the last 12 months.

My clients are not happy with the stability of the solution.

The solution is scalable but the configuration to have it scale can be complex.

I have not opened up a ticket for Cisco Catalyst Switches. However, I have used the support from Cisco and they are very good and responsive.

I have used other solutions, such as Juniper, HP, Aruba, and Fortinet switches, and they are better than Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The configuration of the solution is difficult. If you are not using the Cisco Prime or Cisco DNA for management then the solution will be complex.

Three or five engineers are needed for the implementation of large projects.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are very expensive.

We have found that we need to purchase a DNA license to be able to use the Cisco Catalyst Switches but we never used it. There is an annual fee to use the solution. There are additional services that can be added at an extra cost.

They need to remove the DNA license.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Juniper, HP, Aruba, and Fortinet switches

I would not recommend Cisco for anyone, many of my customers have had bad experiences with them.

For the rest of the business for Catalyst customers, we replacing all of them for our customers. I saw the many cases the customers were replacing Cisco with another vendor. It is more expensive and it didn't meet their expectations. However, we are using another technology from Cisco but the security from Cisco is not good anymore.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a four out of ten.