Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is for data storage for the network.

Integration to third-parties is the most valuable feature. 

Scalability and performance are good. 

Technical support is very good. Not excellent, but good. There's still not enough data available on the web. For example, for the integration to VMware, I had a case recently and I searched for more information but didn't find any. 

We knew we needed to switch solutions because we needed a solution with good performance, scanning, and an overall new and innovative solution. 

We had some hardware problems at the beginning of the initial setup but after that was resolved the setup was straightforward. 

We implemented through an integrator and had a great experience with them. 

The ROI we have seen from the high performance that has saved us time and money.

We also looked at Nutanix. We ended up going with Cisco because our whole network is based on Cisco. 

I would give this solution a seven out of ten because it's still new and I still haven't practiced a lot with it but I have had a good experience until now. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to sit with your integrator, discuss the different products, comply with the competitors, and you will get your desired results.

Our use case would be deployable mobile headquarters, headquarters on the move, where we can quickly deploy to our small user community and quickly create a mobile data center. This includes using business advantage communications.

We are in the architecting phase. We are looking at it being more agile in our deployed headquarters. We are in the testing and deployment phase.

The flexibility is its most valuable feature; the ability to quickly deploy a number of help machines. It is not constrained by what we want to do. 

The product's disadvantage is that it is not necessarily open as I would like it to be. The main platform has some closed features that I would rather not see. For example, I need a mechanism to orchestrate services and an infrastructure as a service model, which is how we are deploying it. We would like to orchestrate it using an open, non-Cisco tool. While there is an API, in order to deploy it, we need to indicate it with a higher layer Network Services Orchestrator. This requires a lot of work to be done. If it could support a more open model, where we have standardized blueprints, templates, or virtual machines, it would be nice. This is an industry problem, not necessarily specific to Cisco.

I would like a lighter product; something which can be carried by a mere human. The typical size still looks like a stack of data center-sized servers, which is typically fine, but not so good if you want to carry it around.

It works as expected.

Based on the bigger picture, scalability should be good. However, we haven't tested in on scale yet. On paper, it is perfectly fine.

The technical support is good.

Our other solution works perfectly fine. However, we do capability upgrades every so often. This is a trigger for me to determine if we are looking in the right direction. As our requirements to be more agile have increased over time when working with our previous system, we learned the system is too complicated. We needed something which is smarter and can be more automated, where a physical engineer use a template and let it run, then get a green light because the system works.

The initial setup was somewhat complex, but this was because of our requirements. We were pushing the physical structure beyond what Cisco could deliver. This made life a bit miserable for the engineer.

Cisco delivered the solution directly to us. They contributed skill, personnel, equipment, and prototypes.

We are looking at Microsoft, VMware, Cisco, and Dell EMC. In the end, we will make our decision on price and functionality.

Give it a go. Work with their engineers and support staff to see if your solution fits. Challenge them to go a bit further than than their standard product.

We use it mostly for our business customers.

Cisco should combine its features with its prices.

The product is stable. No one complains about the stability, which is fabulous.

The scalability is okay. Our customers don't complain about it.

Our technical team said that this is the best solution for us.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was implemented three months ago.

Three months is too soon to see ROI.

The price is a bit too high.

Our technical team made this decision.

Be more careful if your technical person says, "It is necessary to implement and develop the infrastructure."

We are using HyperFlex for heavy workloads and virtual machines which are on a separate network.

• Past deployments
• The possibility to share the workload. We have many applications which have need of workloads only a few times in a month, so we share HyperFlex with them.
• The product works quickly.

We are working with a lot of different technologies and trying to manage them with one tool. The API could be improved for better integration with other systems. For example, the integration to VMware could be better.

We haven't had any downtime. It is absolutely stable.

The scalability is good. We use the nodes that we bought, and they have really scaled out.

Cisco technical support often makes things too complicated. We have easy problems, but they want to WebEx and constantly testing. In the end, we have to exchange a disk and everything is okay. In the beginning, we said the disk is defect, but they want us to test and retest, before acknowledging the disk is defect and we can exchange it. That is a problem for me.

We worked for years with HPE services. We didn't see that they developed, so we looked for other vendors. In the end, we decided on Cisco and are now testing some Cisco technologies. The main technology for us is UCS. HyperFlex was an idea which came from our account manager. I said, "Okay, we can test it." We have a use case. Now, we are working with it.

From day one, it worked. The initial setup was okay.

Cisco helped us to deploy and integrate. Our experience with them was fine.

We are testing it on the slowest workloads. We think by sharing the hardware with several applications that we can save money.

We considered all the vendors. In the end, Cisco checked all the boxes.

At the moment, Cisco is a good vendor, as far as networking solutions. I connect the servers to the network, and the compatibility is good.

We haven't tested the new container functionality. I hope it's good, because this is very important for us.

The primary use case is VDI and virtualization. We are testing it for VDI. For VDI, HyperFlex has been pretty useful.

Everything is in the solution. We don't have to connect to something else or pieces from somewhere else. We also receive centralized reports from it.

The compute storage and virtualization come all in one box.

We would like HyperFlex to connect the storage directly into Fabric Interconnect along with the features of the solution. We have enough ports in HyperFlex. We don't want to buy another set of switches to connect to Fabric Interconnect, complicating the solution. This change would be a great improvement.

We are happy with the stability.

The scalability is fantastic. It scales much more than we need.

We have not used the technical support yet.

Cisco let us know about HyperFlex. We receive training and liked it. We said, "Why not? Let's test it."

The setup is not easy, but it's not complicated. How you implement things can be complex.

We had some courses on it and followed them. So, we did the deployment on ourselves.

We have seen ROI.

We also evaluated VxRail from Dell EMC. However, we went with HyperFlex because it is a Cisco product.

Give HyperFlex a try. Try a demo.

The solution is fantastic for VDI usage.

The primary use case is that we are coming from a legacy data storage network and need more flexibility in both storage and network consumption.

HyperFlex give us a lot of features and functionalities which are key for us. This also applies to the storage.

It is scalable and easy to use.

We would like to move off the GUI.

The system runs. It has crashed. We haven't experienced any issues.

The scalability has been very good for us since we were stuck on our old platform with old drives and hardware. Hyperflex has given us flexibility where we can scale up and down, allowing our servers to react. We now can do large scales for data storage, which helps a lot.

I haven't used the technical support for this product.

We used a partner for the initial deployment who was keen and professional.

We considered Cisco HyperFlex and NetApp.

We chose Cisco because we are a Cisco partner. This way we receive the same scalability all around.

Just go with HyperFlex.

We use this solution for clients who has issues with their infrastructure.

HyperFlex is compatible with VMware. This is good since we are also a VMware partner.

In addition, the product is compatible with Hyper-V, which is another good solution.

It is a high availability solution.

The solution is stable.

The solution can scale up and out.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup is very easy.

The product is expensive. Other solutions are cheaper.

Cisco has the best solution for hyper-convergence.

This is brand new technology for us. We are using the ACI infrastructure in our company for the development of the HyperFlex servers.

By configuring networks, we are saving power.

We don't know yet, as it is new.

The scalability is perfect.

We are cooperating with Cisco, and so far, the technical support has been great.

The setup was complex because we integrated a lot of things: firewalls, F5 products, and ACI.

We did the deployment in-house with Cisco's help.

The cost is expensive, but there is a chance to save money in the future.

The pricing is expensive.

We chose Cisco because it has perfect support with cool people who helped us the configuration.

I would recommend Cisco ACI.