Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

The management feature is the solution's most valuable aspect.

Overall, the solution is pretty good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

We've found the stability to be very good.

The pricing of the solution could be improved. It's a bit too high. We find that most customers can not make it work with their budgets.

When it comes to the virtualization layer, we have issues. We can scale up, and yet we can't add storage.

We need to be able to scale out and not just up. When you want to scale up or scale out, you are quite limited.

It would be ideal to have the flexibility to scale out whereby you are able to do a single type of commodity upgrade. For example, if we could upgrade the memory only, or upgrade the process only or storage only,.

There is a general over-reliance on VMware, the form of the software layer which now includes things like Nutanix. Some customers - especially around Oracle - have a preference to not work around VMware. That's why we need more flexibility to be able to do any event on the top layer.

It would be ideal if we had local support here in Kenya.

I can't recall for how long I've been dealing with the product. It's been a while. 

The stability is quite good on the solution. It's not buggy or glitchy. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is reliable. 

We primarily deal with small and medium-sized companies.

While the solution can scale up, it can't scale out, and this is a problem for us.

Technical support is okay on the computer side. However, when it comes to the virtualization layer, that's where the problem is. I've been having issues. We can only scale up. We cannot scale out. I can't add an additional storage. We're trying to work this through with configurations and we're running into a lot of trouble.

Also, we'd like to have local support in our country. Right now, we are lacking that.

I also work with other vendors, such as Dell.

For small companies and environments full of Cisco I recommend that a company uses Cisco, as the transition is easy as the UCS manager connects well to Hyperflex.  

However, for an organization that doesn't have a clear growth plan, and grows randomly, PowerFlex is better, as it affords more flexibility and it's easier to upgrade.

The initial setup is really easy if you are using Hyperflex money.

I wouldn't describe the initial setup as difficult or complex.

The pricing is high for the solution. The costs need to be adjusted. 

The licensing is okay, however, the harder infrastructure needs to be adjusted.

We are a reseller.

My advice to other organizations considering the solution is to make sure you plan before deployment and put into place a proper plan. The initial pre-project timeline puts into place a proper plan and based on your focus. It will make sure that whatever you put into place meets your requirements both right away and into the future. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

A client typically uses the solution for the VDI critical application and for the containerization as well. It's a critical application and he X location and the hybrid or multi cloud.

The solution is easy to deploy as they're based on ECS. We buy an ECS Manager so that we can scale out easily. We can also integrate with external storage. We can also scale for computing or storage only.

The product is quite stable.

It's very easy to use and quite a mature product.

As a fairly mature product, I can't think of any features that are lacking per se. 

The pricing is pretty expensive.

Right now they are coming into the public cloud, we want to be seeing HyperFlex integration with public clouds such as AWS, Azure or Google. 

I need to see the feature more use cases for the backup and restore functionalities or how  we can expand the cluster to the public cloud.

I've been using the solution since about 2018. It's been about two years or so. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very good.

We do plan to continue using the product and expanding it as needed. 

Cisco is better for enterprise-level organizations.

Cisco has great technical support. We're quite satisfied with their level of service. Cisco does offer full support for the product, which is quite helpful. They have a good amount of knowledge on their product and they are very good at sharing the information and insights they have. 

However, in comparison, Nutanix technical support is better in that they are not only knowledgeable but responsive as well.

As partners, we use a variety of solutions such as Nutanix, Cisco HyperFlex, and NetApp HCI. We don't for example, have partnerships with HPE or SimpliVity.

If you were comparing Cisco, to, for example, Nutanix, Cisco is more expensive.

The initial setup is not too complex. The installation is pretty easy as the HyperFlex has a deployment engine. We can just follow the wizard and go over everything step-by-step. Cisco has guidelines about the installation in the portal which makes it very convenient to get the insights you need.

The deployment is very fast and takes typically under one hour.

The solution can be pretty expensive. It's not the cheapest option on the market.

My role in the company is pre-sales. We offer this solution to our clients. As a partner, we don't use Cisco HyperFlex, but we propose HyperFlex for the customer.

For the deployment, we can deploy for the DC and DRC side, for the synchronous replication, and also for the stress cluster, we can also deploy for the X location as the HyperFlex has a HyperFex extraction for the X location.

I'm in Indonesia, and in this particular country/region, this solution isn't really used very widely. Nutanix is more famous in Indonesia, as it can be used by the SMB customer or small customers up to enterprises. Most hyper-converged solutions that are used in Indonesia are Nutanix.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations, however, only if it made sense and fit their company's needs.

Overall, I would rate the product eight out of ten.

The primary use was for a private cloud for the company. I used it for an ERP system and several other applications that were specialized for the company.

It improved the workflow, as it's much faster than rack servers. It saved months of work. When we implemented the system, it took two or three hours and it took us about another eight hours to move from the old system to the new system. In any other case, it would have taken a lot more time.

• The most valuable feature was the backup - it was easy to back up. 
• The system was never down.
• It was very easy to administrate and manage the system; much easier and faster.
• It was easy to install, it was up and running in minutes.
• It was easy to extend the disk capacities.

Regarding the backup, it's much easier because it's using VMware. You can do large backups without using any additional software because it backs up VMware, the whole process, at the same time.

I would have liked it to be able to back up the system to a cloud, to be able to work from any other place. If there is a data disaster, you need somewhere where the data is stored so the company can still work, especially if you have several other facilities working on the system remotely.

It's very stable. We had no issues with downtime.

With a hyperconverged system it's easy to increase whatever you need. We needed to increase our data storage several times and we increased it very easily. The scalability was very nice and we didn't need any downtime to increase the system.

We had 40 TB capacity and 20 TB availability with about 70 TB of backup. There were about 200 users. Their roles included finance, HR; almost all the departments in the organization.

Technical support was very good. When we needed anything, they were always online. They were generally responsive and helpful. We had to escalate an issue with them once and it was solved in 24 hours.

We used a special ERP system for real estate development, using SQL servers. We used Oracle servers. We used MySQL for HR servers. Those were the main three systems we were using.

We switched to Cisco because it was time to change our servers. They would have been seven years old, so we studied what the best solution to convert to would be and we found that the hyperconverged was much better for us.

The initial setup was very straightforward. There were three people involved: me and two others. One of them was responsible for backing up the old system and one was responsible for the implementation. I was mainly responsible for the overall work, managing it.

After implementation it required one person for maintenance.

We did not use consultant when deploying it.

The areas where we saw ROI were in the administration time for the servers, the lack of downtime, and increasing the capacity. On a five-year basis, the ROI was about 20 percent.

It's much more expensive than rack servers. It was an issue, but when you compare it to the number of people who were administrative assistants before, it's on the positive ROI side. It's much cheaper.

We did a comparison between Nutanix, Dell EMC, and Cisco. In the end, we decided on Cisco over Nutanix. HyperFlex was more affordable, although I think Nutanix is a little better.

My advice is go for it. I had never had experience with hyperconverged, and it was a very nice experience. I learned a lot from it. It was something completely new.

I prefer any hyperconverged system. I think it's a great system.

Our primary use case of this solution is for VDI, Virtual Desktop Infrastructure, for our community college.

It ultimately provides a virtual desktop so that we can backup user data a lot more easily. In the past, it was all a straight desktop computer so if your desktop dies, all your data would die as well.

In terms of it being flexible for various projects, it does seem to lend itself to other applications, for example, our VMware, as well as servers that we may want to bring up under the HyperFlex solution so we may go in that direction sometime in the future.

It has the potential of actually being a six million dollar impact to the college because it replaces people's computers. Until we start to transfer users over to it we really won't know how much of that six million dollars is savings for us.

I don't know if it's lowered the deployment time per se because we really haven't gotten to the point where we added shelves or added servers to it. We're expecting for that to be a simple process given what Cisco claims it will do. Ultimately we're expecting no downtime for that.

The integration between the storage and the server applications is the most valuable feature of this solution. It cuts down on the necessity to buy a secondary storage system. It saves money in the long-run. 

We would like to have the ability to not have to reboot while doing updates. Being able to work through updates with as minimal amount of impact to users.

The stability is great but ultimately we've noticed the updates and upgrades take a bit of an impact on the solution. More so, having to reboot the solution and having to restart it. While it is stable, rebooting it for updates isn't always convenient. Ultimately, just like any organization, we would do that on off hours whether it be weekends, nights, or whatnot. But that costs money because you have to have staff on weekends, nights and whatever overtime they have to account for.

Scalability is just as they predicted. It combined the frontend servers with the backend storage. While it is a little cumbersome to learn, it is scalable to be able to add more shelves if I need more memory or additional servers very easily. It does scale nicely.

I'm pretty neutral about technical support right now given that we're still setting up the solution to some degree. The support is great, as long as there is a maintenance contract in place. But because the overall solution is still rather new, using knowledge base or just generic knowledge base out on the internet is not as prevalent as I would like.

We are a Dell shop. We looked at HP but ultimately because of the features that Cisco brought with the HyperFlex solution, we felt that that was a superior product to everyone else.

The initial setup was straightforward. We simply wanted to understand how the two worked together given that the claim is that it's supposed to be easy to combine both storage and servers.

We used a consultant for the deployment that Cisco suggested. Because the solution is rather new to us the scenario was pleasant. They knew what they were doing but I felt like the knowledge transfer could have been a lot better.

I would rate it a high eight or nine out of ten because of the features and functions that it comes with that the competitors really can't do just yet. The advantage I think so far has been that Cisco developed the entire solution from scratch as opposed to other solution providers like HP and Dell who are still trying to reinvent existing solutions.

I think it's a viable solution if you have a need to cut down on your overall implementation costs on hardware. This does a good job of combining both software and hardware.

Our primary use of the Cisco HyperFlex HX solution is to run virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI).

The most valuable feature of Cisco HyperFlex HX is that it is self-contained. 

Cisco HyperFlex HX is fairly stable. We don't have any problems with it. I would give stability an eight out of ten.

For the scalability of the solution, I would give it an 8 out of10.

The solution's technical support is good. We have had a lot of experiences with them in the past. It's fine. We just had some questions. We didn't know how to do everything. 

We've had a few problems. It's new. Often, we don't know how to solve the issue we're having. The response times are okay.

We were looking for hyperconverged solutions. We already purchased Cisco products for our data center. This was a next-generation device.

The initial setup of the Cisco HyperFlex HX platform was medium-level difficult. It's a little bit different from traditional servers. It takes getting used to the learning curve.

We used a reseller, SMP, for the deployment.

The other vendors on our shortlist were VMware and Datrium.

On a scale from one to ten, I would grade Cisco HyperFlex HX an eight. If the cost was improved, I would give it a ten.

Make sure to look at a long list of competitors in the hyperconverged sector for cross-reference before purchasing. Look at all the main players.

Our primary use case for Cisco HyperFlex HX is internal. We use it for internal hyper-converged. I post VMs for internal use and for customers.

Cisco HyperFlex HX has improved the way our organization functions in the way that the time to deliver a VM takes me five minutes. In comparison, my cloud team's response is a couple of days based on all their overhead policies, procedures, and ticket requests. This is substantial.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is easy to use all across the board. I can do hyper-converged without being a storage guy. That's a big deal.

They should fix the upgrade process. The upgrade process is great. It is seamless 70% of the time, but when it doesn't work, it goes south. Cisco needs to fix some of those upgrade bugs and it will be a perfect solution. That would be good for somebody who doesn't want to spend a lot of time micromanaging the device in production.

It is very stable. I've been running one cluster since 2016 with no outages. I've got two other clusters that have been running flawlessly.

Cisco HyperFlex HX has got great scalability. Right now, they offer a potential scale that is well beyond my network requirements.

Cisco's technical support originally was outstanding, but it has declined over the last 12 months. I've heard they're trying to do better, but I haven't been overly impressed with their support recently for HyperFlex.

We weren't using any previous solution. I was trying to redesign how we deployed services and tools to our customers. The only way to do that was with virtualization.  

I needed something like Cisco HyperFlex HX because I'm a network guy. I'm not a server or storage guy. I wasn't the VM guy. I needed something that I could support with very low maintenance and very few hands. Cisco HyperFlex HX has fulfilled that need greatly.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

For the deployment, we consulted with Cisco directly.

HyperFlex and Nutanix were the main two products that I looked at. The reason I eventually chose Cisco was cost and data center footprint. Nutanix was twice the physical footprint in the data center than HyperFlex.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product a solid nine because of the upgrade process. Everything we've been doing with it is blazing a new trail. 

We've been dramatically changing how we deliver the service. Not only am I changing how we deliver the service, but the tools team is changing the platform they're delivering it on too. It's all a new investment. There are not a lot of cost savings today that we can realize.

You can deploy Cisco HyperFlex HX with very little knowledge of UCS, hyper-converged, or storage. There is very little ramp-up time. UCS manager takes a little bit of getting used to. Cisco HyperFlex HX is a solid product. I can't steer people away from it.

Our primary use case for HyperFlex is for connecting the Meraki VPN. We're working with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. We put the VPN through HyperFlex. 

This product has improved the way our organization functions in the way that we have less work. We have simple communication through the VPN and we have better confidentiality and security.

The most valuable features of this solution are the connectivity, consistency, and that we now have fewer vulnerabilities on the network.

The additional feature I would like to see included in the next release of this solution is more security. We want to add more data servers to all the hosts all over the world. We have 140 hosts that connect to one data center in Manila.

The stability works fine. 

Our scalability works well. It's fine.

The solution's technical support is good. We have a good technical team for support. 

I need to gain more knowledge about Cisco solutions that we need to apply to our system.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We used a reseller in the Philippines for the implementation. They are the only Cisco distributor in the Philippines.

We have seen ROI.

We have a 3-year contract with Cisco. The license is for three years also.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 9. After using it for a year there haven't been any issues or technicalities. 

Pick Cisco.

Our primary use case of Cisco HyperFlex HX is for data centers. It performs well. The solution helps us simplify operations through minimal maintenance and ease of patching. 

We did the upgrade as part of the lifecycle when the previous equipment became end-of-life. It was time for the investment. At the same time, we were building out new data centers. 

This product has improved the way our organization functions by allowing our data centers to perform optimally. It allows us to access our private data centers more seamlessly. This solution is flexible for various projects like cloud migration.

We use Cisco HyperFlex HX to share on the external cloud the ability to access earth science, geophysical data, and core applications.

The most valuable features of this solution are scalability, performance, and reliability. It scales well inside of a large data center.

Cisco HyperFlex HX allows us to connect and scale a lot of different technologies. They're very reliable. It very rarely breaks or has a maintenance issue. 

Cisco HyperFlex HX is easy to patch and very cost-effective.

Cisco HyperFlex HX is very stable and reliable.

Cisco HyperFlex HX is very scalable for a large data center solution.

Technical support is excellent when it's needed through Cisco. It's usually fast, responsive, and done right the first time. 

On occasions, we've had emergency patching requirements. We worked with Cisco to update those environments fairly quickly.

The initial setup of Cisco HyperFlex HX is straightforward. It is easy to install with plug and play connectivity. It was standard with no complexity at all.

HyperFlex lowered our deployment times approximately 20%.

For the deployment, we used Cisco Professional Services.

We've seen our unit cost of providing services to data centers go down.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 10 for the reliability, ease of configuration, and customer support. 

Everyone should understand connectivity in private and public clouds. We require seamless connectivity throughout and especially with some of the security technologies.

Cisco HyperFlex HX is the best on the market. Everyone should consider it.