Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series Reviews

We are a state-affiliated financial company that performs credit recovery from bad banking and we bought four Cisco HyperFlex HX hosts five years ago which came as all-in-one solutions with processor, memory, and disk. These hosts are all situated on-premises.

Within the next ten years, when all credits have been recovered, our mission will end. Unfortunately, our current edition of HyperFlex will end sooner than that, because it will be end-of-life in 2024.

With our four HyperFlex HX hosts (consisting of processor, memory, and disk), the performance is very fast and we have no problems at all. In all of the five years that we have been using HyperFlex, we haven't needed to increase our budget to buy additional hosts. In my opinion, it's a pity that we will have to change it out for something else in 2024 due to it being end-of-life.

In our case as a credit recovery company working with the state, our infrastructure is fixed and stable as we don't have the same need for growth as other types of companies.

That said, one of the biggest problems with HyperFlex HX is that if you want to adjust your solution in terms of processing power, memory, or disk capacity, you have to buy completely new hosts. From a financial perspective, it can be very expensive to do so, and from a legal perspective, there are all kinds of compliance issues we would have to sort out before buying any new solution or application.

Since we as a company will only be operating for perhaps the next ten years, when our HyperFlex solution comes to its end-of-life in 2024 our next step will likely not be with HyperFlex or any other solution from Cisco. Instead, from a financial point of view, we will likely turn toward a cloud solution because, that way, we won't have to spend so much money on physical infrastructure. We are, after all, only a small company and HyperFlex can be very expensive for other companies of our size, whether in Portugal or elsewhere like the United States. 

One other area for improvement is in regard to HyperFlex's integration with VMware. HyperFlex integrates with a specific version of VMware in such a way that HyperFlex doesn't always resolve security issues with VMware at the same pace as what you see in native implementations of VMware. This has happened in one or two situations in the past. On the other hand, the integration is otherwise adequate, especially in terms of availability and virtualization features (such as being able to split up each of our four hosts within VMware).

I have been using Cisco HyperFlex HX for five years.

We have servicing contracts with all parts of our infrastructure, but with HyperFlex you typically only need one person to manage aspects such as implementation and configuration. It does not need much in the way of maintenance, which makes working with it very easy.

The one problem we have, though, is that when you have 20-50 VMs and you want to do updates for either HyperFlex or VMware, there's usually a bit of extra work to do in this process, not knowing whether your interventions or updates will cause problems. But overall, it's easy, and I would rate HyperFlex's stability a ten out of ten.

Cisco HyperFlex HX may be expensive, but this is offset by the fact that it is a highly scalable solution, even though we're only a small team at the moment. Our admin team is only four people, but there are about 200 employees who make use of its resources throughout our company. I would give it a ten out of ten for scalability in this regard.

On the other hand, the scalability is somewhat reduced when you consider that our physical HyperFlex infrastructure will be end-of-life in 2024. Because of this, we are considering changing to a cloud solution, or perhaps another kind of physical solution, once our term with HyperFlex is complete.

Cisco's technical support is knowledgeable and they understand the criticality of the solution. We have used their support about three times and each time they were quick enough to solve the problems we've had until now. This is a plus because we have to do frequent maintenance when it comes to applying security updates for all of our hardware and software.

In the last five years, the only major incident that I can recall was when we struggled to integrate HyperFlex HX with our fiber optic switch redundancy system.

Positive

Before Cisco HyperFlex HX, we used a physical server provided by HP. The reason we switched to Cisco's solution is because it was one of the first implementations in Portugal and Cisco made us a good offer to switch over.

The offer they gave us was, more or less, the same cost as any other standard infrastructure of its kind, and at the time we decided that it was a very good investment. In the first proposal we chose to purchase three hosts, but at the end of the negotiation we added a fourth host because we knew that if we needed the fourth host later, we would have to pay more than in the initial offer. I don't know what the cost of a new Cisco solution would be nowadays, but back then it was a great investment, especially as compared to the standard infrastructure we had with HP.

The initial setup was difficult mainly because the product was entirely new to us. I believe we were the first, or possibly the second, company in Portugal to implement Cisco HyperFlex HX, so naturally it was tough in the beginning. Fortunately, we had help from Cisco and the deployment, which took place over the span of a few weeks, was a success.

After the setup, we thought everything would be easy, but still it was somewhat difficult for the reason that it was all new to everyone at my organization. After a bit more hands-on experience with it, however, it wasn't too difficult.

The biggest challenge of our deployment was the integration of HyperFlex with our fiber optic switch as well as with our backup switch (for redundancy). When we shut down the primary switch, the HyperFlex infrastructure would sometimes go offline, causing about 30 of our VMs to enter into an unworkable state.

We eventually resolved this situation by re-configuring the redundancy method for our switches, because they were originally acting as if we only had one switch and not two. This solution entailed splitting the switches into two types, one active and one passive, and after we implemented this change, the HyperFlex solution began working properly and we haven't had a similar problem since then.

In total, putting this implementation into production from our previous VMware infrastructure took about two to three weeks, and if I were to give a rating for the ease of setup, I would give it a five out of ten.

The standard physical hardware was, admittedly, very expensive in the beginning, but everything has been good in terms of ROI. We have seen perhaps a 20% return on our initial investment and if we were to go back in time we would do the same again.

When we negotiated with Cisco for the HyperFlex solution, they gave us a good price because they wanted to break into the market in Portugal for the first time. However, in general, I think it's a very expensive solution. It's a huge amount of money to acquire this kind of infrastructure.

I would give the pricing a rating of eight out of ten.

My main recommendation to others is to do the proper calculations in terms of processor, memory, and disk requirements. This will ensure that you have the correct number of hosts from the beginning, because adding a new host at a later stage may be expensive.

Overall, HyperFlex HX is an excellent solution and we like it a lot, not only because it's easy to apply its resources whenever you need to add extra VMs to your infrastructure, but also because it allows you to manage all these resources in an efficient manner.

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

HyperFlex is a hyper-converged infrastructure system that is a cluster of servers that provide compute and storage at the same time. Most other networking systems provide either computation separately from storage and networking. However, HyperFlex is a combined system that provides compute, networking, and storage in the same solution. That is, it gives you a single point of management for everything instead of separately for different components.

We've adopted Hyperflex as the new Virtualization solution for our network. all new workloads will be created on Hyperflex, and all existing workloads will be migrated to Hyperflex over the next few years.

The product makes management much easier since there's a single pane of glass to use to monitor, manage and upgrade the system. 

You can achieve similar performance for your system by buying separate components, however, HyperFlex allows you to achieve the same performance using one system. It's basically one integrated system. That's the most powerful aspect of it. 

The solution is quite stable.

The scalability of the product is quite good overall - as long as you plan correctly from the outset.

A disadvantage is the higher costs involved in using this product. If it were more affordable, it would be easier to recommend and HCI adoption rate would increase. Unlike other options, you need to pay a subscription to Cisco yearly instead of paying for the hardware outright, which makes it more expensive in the long run.

The initial setup could be easier. Right now, it's a bit difficult. 

We've used the solution over the last 12 months.

It's been stable since we set it up. It's been very stable and providing good service. 

We are considering expansion at the moment. The solution is easily scalable if it is planned correctly from the beginning. 

Our previous generation is going to end support in two years. We're planning to migrate our whole virtualization infrastructure from the old generation solution to the Cisco solution. Basically, within one or two years, we'll be moving all our instrumentation and all our workloads will be moving to this solution.

A minimum of three servers is needed. If these servers have good specifications from the beginning, it's as easy as adding another node. You can expand the solution with more and more nodes. That said, if the node isn't configured properly in the amount of CPU, RAM, and storage, then when you try to expand, you must either expand with more than one node to add more and more scalability, or you must upgrade the existing nodes.

HyperFlex is hosting our financial systems. In terms of users, for management, it's just the ITT and we're managing the solution. However, if you consider people who are using the servers as infrastructure, then you can say more than 50 people technically are on the solution. Basically, the whole company uses the PBX system as an exchange for phone calls, for example.

We haven't reached out to Cisco in terms of needing technical support. We've reached out for other reasons, however,  and they were very quick to respond. For this solution, in particular, we've been working with Cisco's partners  - and since our partner provides good support, then we haven't needed to reach out to Cisco directly.

We used to have a non-converged solution before Hyperflex that had separate components, however, when we chose to go with a hyper-converged solution for our network, we chose HyperFlex.

The initial setup is not exactly straightforward or simple. It's a bit difficult, a bit complex. 

Luckily, we had the support of the Cisco partner to install and integrate the solution. However, it would have been much easier if we could do it in a shorter time. 

It is a complicated process for integration and it takes time. It can take several hours to install and configure the solution. If the setup process was faster, it could have been done in a shorter time. Basically, it took about two or three days to finish the whole setup. From unpacking to going online, it took us a few days. While the installation is a part of the process, the most time-consuming point was the initial setup.

We had a Cisco partner that assisted us in the initial implementation. 

The solution comes at a higher cost than if you had separate integrations grouped together.

There are licenses included with the hardware, and then there are annual subscriptions that you need to pay. You need to pay an annual subscription service to Cisco for operating the solution. There are other solutions that are purely hardware and whatever licenses you pay, you pay one time along with the purchase, or if you need to expand. This solution has an annual subscription payment.

We are customers and end-users.

The HyperFlex is on-premise the hardware infrastructure. You can set it up with VMware ESXi or with Microsoft Hyper-V. We chose to go with VMware ESXi. It was a requirement of the other systems that we depended on. We could have gone with Hyper-V, however, VMware turned out to be the right solution. The system is hardware and it's compatible with both software solutions or hypervisor solutions. We chose VMware ESXi and turned out to be a better solution than Hyper-V.

I would recommend the product to other users, as long as it's affordable for the company. The cost is high. It is about 150% more costly than a comparable older generation solution. However, if you can afford it, then by all means go for it. 

I'd also advise new users to choose a higher-end specification for the servers. This is also important. That would make extending it easier. For example, the fiber interconnected component the solution sells is like a switch. It's sold per port. If you buy exactly what you need now, you have to replace the hardware when you want to expand. Therefore, plan for the needs of the future, not the present.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for stretched cluster uses when the customer has multiple data centers and he won't achieve the highest level of availability. He can stretch the workload between different data centers giving him more availability when one of these data centers fails and the workload can be migrated and replicated to the other data centers. From an infrastructure level you achieve the highest availability. I am talking about 100% availability from a storage perspective.

We are providing this solution for the customer or converting the customer from a traditional environment to a hyper-converged environment which consolidates all management and support on a single port. This is the main benefit of using the hyper-converged versus the traditional.

The stretching cluster features have the highest delivery of availability from a  storage perspective. You gain all the features related to or coming from virtualization because it is based on a virtualized environment. We already implemented VMware over hyper-convergence. We took all the features coming from the virtualized or VMware environment, such as high availability, DRS and sanity rules and we can segregate the workload between two data centers using rules to maintain the workload even if one of data centers fails.

In terms of what could be improved, Cisco HyperFlex should decrease the amount of memory needed from the Controller VM that controls the physical discs. They control the discs by using the virtual VM over every ESXi host and the VM consumes memory and consumes more hardware resources. They have to improve that by decreasing the amount of required memory and CPUs to control this disc on the server. 

From a technology perspective there is no problem. The main issue is cost-wise. Cisco costs more than its competitors.

As for what I would like to see in the next release, Cisco already has a solution, but in a different profile called the CWOM, Cisco Workload Optimization Manager, and Cisco Intersight. This solution manages and optimizes workloads on the infrastructure and integrates them with the monitoring solution and gives insights and recommendations for the customers. I think it is included on solutions such as the VxRail which has the vROps, vRealize Operations Manager. Cisco did not include this on this solution, but in a separate solution. They have to have a logs server to collect all logs and give insights from all hardware. This is included in the Cisco Intersight but it is not included in the hyper-converged infrastructure solution.

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

I am running it now on an implementation project for hyper-converged with a HyperFlex stretched cluster. A solution from hyper-converged, but not such a standard implementation - it is stretched between different sites.

No problem with stability. I have a customer and I have not spoken to him since the last upgrade one year ago. He didn't face any problem.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is scalable.

I think you need one or two people maximum to operate it. They must have different technology experience from different perspectives because they deal with the virtual storage and the servers, but its concept is coming from computing and virtualization. Someone should have the knowledge of all the verticals.

Cisco support is great. But when we ask about something, they reply with the standard schema, which makes me confused. Let's say I have a problem with a customer who has a problem in their Dell or Cisco servers and I open a ticket for it. Support replies please check, check, check, check. I know! I checked all this already. I know I have to check this before calling you. This takes time. We have to go directly to our customer and try to solve the problem. Maybe sometimes our customer is solving the problem. I don't like to give them advice that is only go and check one, two, three.

The initial setup was straightforward. The advanced solution was straightforward from an implementation perspective.

There was no problem with implementation. It has improved since past versions which had many errors and many bugs.

If our pre-requisites are ready, deployment and implementation take two days maximum.

My advice to anyone considering Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is that they have to study what the hyper-converged solution is and why they are going into hyper-convergence. Why not use the traditional way? This is the first thing. If they understand the concept, they can very easily go through the implementation because the hyper-converged solution is based on automatic implementation. We have a virtual machine capable of implementing the solution, but in the background there are many automated tasks running. If you don't know what is running in the background you didn't understand anything.

You have to understand and then go through the automated implementation related to hyper-converged. Any new solution allows you to implement everything automatically, you don't need to implement different components and then integrate them with each other. You have to configure single machine. You can implement everything from that single machine.

You have to understand why you are going to hyper-converge before you go to the implementation.

You can dig into it, but you will not understand anything. If you're facing any issue, you can't solve the problem. So when you're implementing for other companies, Cisco or Dell or whatever, they are asking about the pre-requisites. You have to have these pre-requisites before going into the implementation because when you have more information relative to the customer side or the requirements and the pre-requisites, the implementation is straightforward. But if you lack all the pre-requisites you will face many problems and you will not be able to define where they are coming from.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a nine.

Our workload is very heavy. We always acquire support from the tech engineer from Cisco, and they are always there for assistance and provide us the necessary health and guidance. In our environment, we manage to patch our infrastructure regularly, and we don't want to miss any patches. This sometimes it requires a lot of effort, and sometimes the updates are not recommended, and we have to wait for the recommended version. The patch management can impact us in our scope. This helps us centralize everything to make things easier. 

One of the major features of HX is that you have the replication factor, and you have the option to copy your data - and not just once. You also have the option to copy it twice or even get a third copy. It depends on the RF while deploying the checks. This is one of the great benefits. That way, if there is a major outage and you lose one of the nodes, you still have your data, and the data store is up and running, and your service won't be impacted. This is very beneficial for our company as we own a service that should be up and running 24/7. It's related to one of the government sectors, and it's very critical to have it always up and to avoid any downtime.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

It's stable.

We can easily scale the solution. 

The port could be improved. They have a robo port and can build a cluster with two nodes. This one needs a bit more focus. They need to provide us with more advice or maybe some documentation or some instructions for best practices, so we can leverage it effectively. 

They should give us a little more information about how to use the CLI and offer more commands. Right now, if we can't find what we need, we need to raise a ticket or send an email. Sometimes we don't have that time to wait for the ticket or the case to be assigned. We should just have access to information about the CLI and various commands.

I've been using the HX for almost three years.

It's a stable solution. Sometimes we face an issue regarding the hard disk. We might find that it's unhealthy and must be replaced by Cisco. This can be easily monitored. 

It's a scalable solution. 

You can upgrade or add many hard disks so the business can keep continuity and scalability. It's also based on your business scope. We have ten branches. The ten branches are variants between the HX nodes. Some of them have ten hard disks, and some of them do not. Some of them have more. In any case, we find it very simple to scale where needed. 

We have six system administrators working directly with the solution.

I'm not sure if there is a plan to increase usage just yet.  

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is easy to set up. Once you choose the cluster mode that you want to go through, you can put in all the IPs, and HX will start to build the clusters across the nodes. While it's a little bit complex at the beginning, when you get used to it, it's simple.

We have two people available to maintain the solution once it is deployed. 

We have a partner for support, and they do most of the work. We do a bit ourselves in-house as well. Some of us on the interior team have an HX certification and have strong knowledge of the solution. I'm working to be certified myself right now. 

We have seen an ROI while using this product. 

I'm not aware of the exact costs of the solution. 

We looked at VxRail from Dell and Nutanix. We chose Cisco as we use Cisco a lot in our company.

I would suggest new users read the documentation very well and prepare an action plan based on their design. They have to address all the possibilities and have a rollback plan in case something goes wrong. These points must be addressed. For beginners or some people who don't have this knowledge, they must consult a third party who has this knowledge to ensure they have done it correctly to avoid lengthy troubleshooting or any other issues.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are one of the biggest cloud providers in Bangladesh, so we use this service and we are relaying the service to the end customer. We have many multinational companies, ODSMs providers, and banks as our customers, so it's pretty good, knowing that we have a kind of highly-loaded workload.

It's a very robust solution. There are a lot of products on the market you can access, but this is an end-to-end compact solution for the end customer. It's good, and it's a high-end type of product. The workload can handle anything and has an extended capacity. 

The problem is that we always have to keep an eye out for new releases to make sure that the version we're running is up-to-date. The way their infrastructure is updated and evaluated, they are always updating their firmware structure. That is the only challenge we are experiencing, but you have to look for the updates all the time, which is a challenge and everyone's very frustrated at this point.

The cloud world is changing every day. It would be good if they added provisions for activities like micro-services and micro-segmentation. 

We have been using this solution for almost two and a half years. 

It isn't stable so far because the problem is that you have to update your version, and then also update your firmware to the latest development. If you're using an old version of any of them, it makes trouble. That is a challenge we are facing, but it is okay. The solution handled an enterprise where they switch the workload and run it every day, so it is stable in that way.

The solution is scalable. We are using so many clusters, including standard clusters, self-encryption device clusters, and accessories. It is definitely a scalable solution. As a service provider, we have over 80 people using the solution.

I have reached out to technical support so many times. The team is definitely excellent. It's clear they want to be the biggest cloud company in the world, so they're very supportive people. They have a lot of knowledge to share, and I'm happy to work with them.

There are a lot of constants and there's a lot to do on the infrastructure and stories part, so there are different segmentations. Integration of the stories part is okay if you have a knowledge of what the stories require. After the stories part, you also need to reach out to the Hyperflex center version for service to the cloud. If you're using EMC or maybe data updates or other things, it's the kind of thing where you need to understand those first.

For the later parts of the integration, you need to understand what you have because it really gets pretty complex. You have to integrate it with the gen network. It gets a little bit complex when there's micro-segmentation, or an application type of thing. You have to share that stuff with a lot of different segments, so I would say the network setup is pretty difficult and complex.

Initially, we had a system integrator. They are from India and they initially helped us and guided us through it. They were here onsite and they worked with us and shared knowledge about how to do stuff and how to get the services. Initially it was definitely a challenge, but after getting the services and workload and testing so we knew what we needed, we moved into application. From that point we were able to do it on our own.

We have a yearly license. 

I would recommend this product, depending on the context. It depends on what kind of services you want to run and provide.

My company decided on this solution because of the stability, sustainability, and strength of the product. Also, they have so much support, and their people are knowledgeable. When you're having a problem, they will help you to find a solution. Whatever problem you are facing, you are able to solve.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

We deploy these for our customers, we're in the reseller space.

Use cases are typically around data center revolutions, consolidations in virtualization density, and being able to scale both up and out.

On the architectural side of it, there's the single pane of glass. In the hyper-converged, there is that validated design approach of having all of the components which should work together.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is better than most.

The pricing can always be better on everything. 

The interdependencies of each of these functions and the configuration side are something that needs to be carefully architected so that if something isn't working in my memory stick, it doesn't have a cascading waterfall effect through the rest of my operation. The interdependency could be improved so that everything will not be so interrelated.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. 

We've been a partner with Cisco for over 20 years, and, as it pertains to HyperFlex, we probably deployed the first HyperFlex in the Northeast region - and that was probably four years ago. We did it when it first came out.

In terms of stability, it's way more stable than when it first came out. The earlier evolutions of this were like building the plane as we were flying it.

Cisco tech support, as bad as it can be, is better than most.

There's additional complexity around the solution.

In a hyper-converged scenario, the financial outcome is that you need to further align your refresh cycles of your storage, of your compute stack, and of your networking. From the client-side, that can also lead to a little bit of solution lock-in, a slight vendor lock-in.

Before, if I wanted to see maybe if my storage is up, and I'm looking at the time to adopt all-flash SSD or putting NVME in my environment, and updating my either blade centers, or pizza box servers, et cetera, it would all fit together. Even though that there's modularity built into the hyper-converged, there's still a little bit of a tax where you have to overbuy on other resources to provision that you want.

You don't need a huge team to deploy the solution. A deployment team is lightweight. It's two different individuals or maybe three with project management included.

We're a gold partner, one of their leading partners in our area.

Historically, I'm not very much pro-hyper-converge as there's a lot to the market still. What happens is, if it's poorly architected, that if something's screwed up, everything is screwed up. That's the part of the issue with the hyper-converged. You've got it very tightly knit. However, there are still advantages to the separation of failure domains, whether that be your compute, your storage, your memory.

I would take a Cisco Flex approach over a Cisco hyper-converged approach, all day, every day. It's the most widely adopted platform in the world for converged architecture and has a knowledge base that is way larger and has way more experience running. Also, just because you have to update one piece of it doesn't mean you have to update all pieces of it. My honest opinion is to still see what else is in the market to validate your approach to go with an all Cisco solution in the hyper-converged space. 

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

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.

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.