Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

We deployed HyperFlex for our website services, as well as we put our F5 on it. Basically, we use it for some applications, some better features.

The main value is it brings the total solution, so you don't need to worry about storage and also networking. It brings to you an all-in-one option. The good side is you don't need to worry about it. 

Support is very responsive.

If you need to expand, scalability is an issue. Overall, you can just call Cisco and then they will help you to fix everything.

The storage could be better. If you want to expand the storage, sometimes you need to expand the memory at the same time. This could be cumbersome or pricey.

The initial setup can be complex. 

I've used the solution since 2019.

In terms of stability, during the setup, there are a lot of issues, however, it's not really related to HyperFlex. It might be hardware issues. However, once fixed, you don't need to do any maintenance except upgrades. Once it's fixed, it is very smooth.

The scalability could be better. It doesn't have a big impact.

We have our customers using the solution. We have about one million customers. 

Support has been good. 

Every time we raise a case to Cisco, whenever there's an upgrade, if there are some tricks or some stuff that we do not understand, then they will probably come and help us fix the issue.

Neutral

It's a little bit difficult to set up the solution. It's not exactly straightforward. 

We've maintained it by ourselves. That said, for sure, if we need a support, then we would ask Cisco to help. In terms of maintenance, we have an external backup solution, so the backup is not quite related. For upgrades and updates, it's not quite frequent and it's not very complicated.

I do not handle any aspects of licensing. 

I don't have a solid figure. For the production part, I pass it to our operation team to continue the license purchase. However, for the lab, I maintain it. For the lab, I spent around $70,000 to $100,000 CAD per year for licensing and maintaining it.

I'm a customer. 

If the system is going to be a scalable product or scalable application, I would not recommend it to others. However, if it's more scalable deployment, then HyperFlex is a good solution. If it's a large-scale deployment, it is better to go for another option that can separate the storage, et cetera.

For our environment, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

We needed a complete solution with a software-defined data center. We use Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series, VMware, and Application Centric Infrastructure(ACI) with micro-segmentation and application latency.

The most valuable feature of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is the integration with everything in a much smoother, such as in physical and virtual environments. VMware NSX is a simpler solution but, Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is more robust compared to VMware NSX. 

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series could improve by having the documents be more readily available and the support could be more flexible.

I have been using Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series for approximately one year.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is stable. However, this solution has a lot of dependencies, and if there is a single point of failure the solution will be impacted.

The scalability of HyperFlex HX-Series is good. Once you implement the solution, the integration is smooth.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

I have contacted the support for Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series and whenever we log a call they were resolved. However, the time it took was long, it could be faster.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is difficult to implement. It took us approximately 60 days to complete the setup.

We documented what we were going to require for the setup and we had a partner do it for us. Internally we do not have the implementation skills required to complete the process for Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series. However, we do have the skill set for managing all the applications.

The maintenance of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is minimal.

The return on investment has been good.

There is a 30 percent additional premium that all the companies are charging for Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series because of the lack of chips and bottlenecks in the market. The cost of the solution is high right now.

We have a process to pick the five-year standard license which we do not have any additional costs.

My advice to others is if you have VMware, then you should choose Cisco or HP rather than going with Dell.

I choose Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series because of the seamless integration which I was interested in. It is a complete solution for proper software-defined data centers with hardware, software, and everything else.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series an eight out of ten.

We are partners and integrators of HyperFlex and I am a company Deputy Operative Director of IT.

HyperFlex has benefited us because there are no additional storage requirements and it requires less effort from the server and services in general. 

This solution offers very good data protection and also provides system uptime availability more effectively than the majority of other servers. It can calculate the multiple failures that give better uptime on the nodes. It provides good performance. HyperFlex has great scalability opportunity. 

Every node has a storage controller VM that checks identity and I think that should be eliminated in order to optimize the resource utilized. I'd like to see the ability to integrate with HPE because SimpliVity has some backup-live features which are useful for us. Finally, some improvement to the documentation would be helpful. Expecting some improvements in restore point and failover mechanism. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

Cisco HyperFlex is stable. We faced some issues because it has single dependency on the caching disk, and when that goes down it all goes down. It has only happened once. That aside, it's a stellar solution.

The solution is robustly scalable

The customer support is very good. 

Positive

The implementation isn't too complex but there are some requirements, including pre-deployment which requires a lot of documentation and security such as security management, secured data, VM and the like. We used a local partner to assist with deployment. We have a team of six that were involved in the implementation and with data center maintenance.

We partnered with a SI team and our in-house team also worked equally.  

Organization can achieve a good value of ROI. It depends on organization to organization and also based on purposes. 

We have a three-year license with Cisco and it's a reasonable price. 

We had previously used converged networks and when we decided to move to a hyper-converged infrastructure we evaluated several solutions including Dell EMC and HPE SimpliVity. We checked several criteria including financial, features, technical issues, and availability. We found that the HyperFlex performance gave us added benefits so we went with that.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The hyperconverged infrastructure is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution. Within the additional platform and then having the HyperFlex, the new solution of Cisco, it's actually quite advanced already. They are fast with the idea of not using storage and using HCI or hyperconverged infrastructure. Technically, I've been checking everybody's products and they are all very similar. The advantage of Cisco is it can install different platforms of virtualization software. It can install Hyper-V or it can also install VMware, for example - things we are using already and then it can work the IOPS that we provide. That's another thing.

The stability has been great. It's a quality product.

The solution scales extremely well. 

Technical support is fast.

They need to provide lower prices. It is pricey in comparison with other vendors - including Nutanix, or VxRail of EMC. They are quite expensive due to the fabric interconnect, the FI, that they have. The other vendors don't have those fabric interconnects while Cisco requires the fabric interconnect. 

The initial setup can be complex. 

We'd like to see a backup solution included in the product in the future. 

I've been using the solution for two years already.

I have a really high opinion of Cisco since I've been selling Cisco for quite some time and I have deployed it a lot. So far, the stability and the quality are really, really good. I have no issues with the stability and quality of Cisco. 

It's actually one of the HCIs that I consider to have a greater potential for expansion. The scalability of Cisco is better than the others.

Technical support is great They are very fast and responsive. 

In comparison with other solutions, it's quite complex to set up due to the fabric interconnects with it. That said, I'm used to it. However, if you're going to compare it with other setups, and other vendors don't have those things. I understand that Cisco's servers need those for server profiles, and the others don't have those advantages. Still, if we do a direct comparison with other vendors, that would be the disadvantage as it's an additional cost in comparison with the pure network that you would connect with the hyperconverged infrastructure such as Nutanix, PowerFlex, VxRail, or SimpliVity of HP. That's the disadvantage of Cisco.

Only one person is required to handle any maintenance responsibilities.

The solution is quite expensive when compared to other options, although their technology is better. 

You do need to pay a yearly licensing fee. How much depends upon how many are using it. I'm not sure how much in dollars, however, in pesos, it's around, if I'm 3 million to 5 million. Everything is included under on licensing fee. there are no extra costs. 

We use a variety of different versions of the solution. It depends. 

I'd advise new users to study the product. It needs, really, a knowledge of the product. I really highly recommend Cisco due to its stability and scalability, and also the performance of the equipment. It's got great quality. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is its performance.

I have been receiving a memory overflow message every day when I use the solution. 

This memory overflow error is a cosmetic error. Over the last three years, I have been talking with Cisco to remove this error. Cisco and VMware should cross-check and troubleshoot this issue to come to a solution. They should remove it as soon as possible.

I have been using Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series for approximately three years.

The solution is stable. However, we have had a memory overflow error, that has not to be resolved but it is only a cosmetic error. 

The scalability of the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series has been very good for what we are using it for in the current project.

We have approximately 400 users using this solution.

We do not plan to increase usage at least for the next six months.

We have not had a good experience with the support. They were not very helpful with the cosmetic error we were receiving.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Nutanix. I find that Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is better than Nutanix. Cisco products have better performance overall.

I did not face any problems in the implementation.

We had a partner do the implementation of the solution. I was not happy with the partner because they have not resolved the error message we have been receiving from Cisco after months of conversations.

The partner support could improve.

All of our maintenance is handled by our partner.

There is a license required to use this solution.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a seven out of ten.

We are implementing the solution for Hyper-converged systems.

I find the Hyperflex most valuable. It compares well with Nutanix. 

The minimum for running involves three nodes, which is the number I use for running the patch. The solution is not very good when it comes to a single node. 64 is the maximum number of nodes. 

As I work with Hypervisor or VMware, the solution usually is easy when it comes to monitoring and backup. I rely on backup and monitoring capabilities. I use Veeam, for example, as a backup solution and SolarWinds for my monitoring needs. 

I am a gold partner of Cisco and am entitled to a discounted price. When it comes to customer needs, the licensing price could be better. By comparison, Nutanix is more affordable. The choice of Cisco varies with the needs of the client. 

The solution is extremely stable. I work in Hyperflex. The customer can simply send. 

The solution is extendable and flexible for administrative purposes. I will normally deploy and cluster the containment in six nodes, with another in four, in three and in five. 

Overall, the solution is extremely easy, flexible and secure. 

Technical support is okay, although I have never opened a ticket with them. 

The initial setup and deployment of the solution is extremely easy. All that must be done is to prepare the infrastructure and IP, at which point it can be deployed with ease. 

There are five or six customers who make use of the solution. 

Hyperflex developed its first platform in 2015, while Simplivity and Nutanix did so in 2009. 

The solution centralizes everything in a single IP. It is extremely simple, secure and good for deployment. 

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series as a six out of ten. 

Our primary goal is to have a solution that enables us to have 100% uptime between two sites. That's why we're using HyperFlex. It has a very critical application. We are a government organization with around 15,000 users although that can go up to 25,000 in peak times. I'm an infrastructure integration analyst.

I like the stretch cluster, it's a feature that allows us to warranty a service for the customer that has to be 100% uptime. That aside, the solution also has flexibility, scalability, performance and availability. The main objective for us is DRA, Disaster Recovery Avoidance. We don't want to go into disaster recovery so our aim is for 100% avoidance. The hardware might not be perfect but Cisco is very proactive with their support. 

There are sometimes issues with memory failure. I'd also like to be notified when new documentation comes out, it would make things easier. I think the cost is an issue given that it's so much cheaper to use cloud based solutions these days. I don't know whether HyperFlex can compete with that. There can sometimes be issues if you change your mind on something and want to move things around. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

It's a stable solution. 

This is a scalable product. 

Every time I have a problem I contact the HyperFlex team and they solve it. 

Implementation requires having a roadmap and steps in place. If you have that, it's pretty straightforward because you know exactly where you need to input your specific information from your own environment. Maintenance is not very demanding, we have five people who can deal with that, but it wouldn't take up more than 10% of their time on any one day. Once it's up and running, it's stable. 

We are evaluating VMware Hybrid Solution and HPE SV signatures. HPE has very good hardware, but they don't have a good software defined solution. There are so many screens and sometimes it's a burden for us on the tech side. 

I think any business could use HyperFlex, it's a good solution for big or small business.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use this solution as Active-Active and to host some of our applications. Compared to Nutanix, it is not as good. Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is not a matured HCI solution. If something goes wrong with Nutanix, we use Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series, so we at least have half of our systems running. It is helpful as a backup solution.

A lot needs to be improved. Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series does not support the stretch cluster, and the interface is not good. Features are missing, and it does not support VMware Seven.

We have been using this solution for about three years, and I believe we are using version 4.5. It is deployed on-premises.

It is not a stable solution.

We have about 10,000 users. Maintenance is okay, but the hardware failure is too much, and sometimes memory is lost.

The support is okay but unprofessional.

The initial setup was complicated, and we had to struggle a lot. The switches, such as WAN switches, LAN switches, Nexus, and all those areas, are perfect. But when it comes to HCI, it is not a good solution. So we completed deployment with Cisco support.

I rate this solution a four out of ten.