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.
Improved telecom control functions and security have exposed user plane performance gaps
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
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.
What needs improvement?
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.
For how long have I used the solution?
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.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
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.
How are customer service and support?
I would rate the Cisco technical support team around nine.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Positive
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Their pricing is acceptable because they are trying to match the market.
What other advice do I have?
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.
