Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series Reviews

I have many clients using this solution for a number of reasons, such as unified communications and collaboration.

There could be an increase in performance to improve the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The solution is reliable.

We have had no problems with the scalability of the solution.

The technical support has been very good for this solution.

I would rate the installation of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series an eight out of ten. However, it can be complex. 

We are on an annual subscription and the price is fair.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

Our primary use case is for the distributed computing system in several data centers. 

It has reduced the time it takes to put the servers in production by half the time.  

The flexibility and scalability are the most valuable features. 

They should have more blade options and more configuration flexibility. Also, the price is expensive. It should be cheaper but it is worth the price. 

It's very stable. 

The scalability is one of its main features.

Technical support is very good. 

We switched because we wanted more flexibility, more features and because the global PoC price is better. 

The initial setup was complex because our engineers had some problems with putting it into production but it was fine after they solved the issue.   

I would rate it an eight out of ten. The features that it has are balanced with customer's needs and the price. In order to make it a ten, they should lower the cost.

I would advise someone considering this solution to explore all of the feature options. The solution's value is in its features. 

Our primary use case is to reduce our hardware storage and to make it virtual so we use vSAN and HyperFlex.

The most valuable features are scalability and the easy operation - if it works. You can configure everything from just one window.

They can't get a POC to work because there are big latencies between the two sites we have. Even though we have a private fiber connection and everything else works well, they can't get the two products to talk to each other. They are not able to build it up. It looks like it's a firmware issue. They said it isn't but now it's looking like it is. I hope we can sort it out. 

In terms of the stability, we can't get it to work. We have one or two VMs online but nothing we could say to get an overview of it.

In terms of scalability, we can add servers, storage servers or computing servers, and we're much more flexible with block-based storage.

We had one other block-based storage just run out of support and service so we thought we'd go with migration. We have a dual-vendor concept and so we wanted to go with vSAN and something else in storage so we chose HyperFlex.

The setup is pretty much is straightforward. The issue is that it doesn't work afterwards.

We integrated directly through Cisco. 

I would rate this solution a three out of ten. I would advise someone considering this solution not to spread it over two data centers.

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.

Cisco is key for switching abilities. The management from the switches to the hyper-convergence solutions, such as the storage or server environment, is quite good and well-developed. 

It is more high end versus other solutions, like Lenovo HX, but, Cisco partners are very loyal to the brand. 

Cisco is more scalable versus other solutions in the same sphere. For example, Cisco is predominantly used with bigger companies. Lenovo HX is used for smaller sized companies. 

I have prior experience with VMware, Nutanix, and Lenovo HX. I think that Lenovo HX is more user-friendly and easier to deploy versus the Cisco HyperFlex solution. Lenovo HX also has more market share in the middle sized business market.

Cisco is a bit more challenging to setup. You need to be knowledgeable in order to implement the solution. In comparison, Lenovo HX is very straightforward and easy-going. 

Cisco is quite expensive but not in the initial first buy.  

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is simple to use, user-friendly and has been best for our purposes.

The solution could improve by having more customization.

I have used Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series within the past 12 months.

I have found Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series to be reliable and stable.

The scalability of the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is good.

The support of the solution is good, we have not had a problem.

The implementation and configuration of the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series were easy.

The full deployment took approximately three months.

We did the implementation with the help of a partner.

The price of the solution could be reduced, it is a little expensive.

My advice to others is you must have the project very well defined, or you will get in trouble.

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

This is not the only product we use, so we have other solutions to compare it with. We can compare different products and different vendors and tell our customers which products have which advantages and disadvantages so that they can leverage these products in their own environment. This product helps us to understand the customer's needs and what issues they can run into.

The most valuable feature is the integration between our product and HyperFlex. We show our customers the integration between the backup and the deduplication solution that we offer and this CISCO hyperconverged solution.

The primary improvements should be made in the cluster storage controller VMs so that they don't break the upgrade process. 

I would like to see integration with multi-site ACI deployments so that we can span clusters between multiple sites, with ACI running within each site. 

The platform itself is very stable and robust, but when it comes to upgrading the system, it's not stable. The process of upgrading should be seamless so that the customer's data is not affected in any way. Nothing should happen to the customer's data during the upgrading process but we've had situations where the upgrade process did not go smoothly. We've had to open a tech case to solve the issues and sometimes we even have to evacuate the entire virtual machine clusters into another system. 

Scalability was kept in mind when they designed this product. We can scale from really small deployments to very large deployments. The scalability is not an issue with HyperFlex, it scales better than Nutanix and other vendors. 

Their technical support is really good. They are very professional, I cannot complain about the support. The only issue is that they will often only be available during time zones that don't work within European working hours. 

The deployment was not hard. We deployed the full server installation with CISCO HyperFlex. The original version that we tried to deploy was something like 2.2. We ran into a few issues but we managed to solve them on our own, without CISCO tech. If everything goes smoothly the entire deployment can take only a few hours. 

I did the deployment myself. 

We see ROI every day. The return on investment is fantastic and is the primary reason why we deployed these clusters all around our site locations so that our SE engineers can show the customers.

We also use Nutanix and Pure Storage. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the issues with the upgrading process.

We use it in junction with unified communication solutions. It provides great flexibility for our customers to expand the solution. Also, the ease of management is why they use HyperFlex.

We have some large customer managing some large hospitals in Denmark and it's very easy to make changes and expand with solutions around the hospitals. The management of the system can be done in a centralized way which has been a benefit for us. 

Most of our users are Cisco customers, so it fits in within the suites we use. Primarily for me, as a solution architect, it's the technology and architecture that is the most valuable. I know from my technical colleagues that it's easy to use and for the customer, the uptime is the most valuable asset. It's running and has low failure which is why we use it.

We are moving further out with more cloud solutions, so we need HyperFlex to be more cloud-connected. They should develop more connection to Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud because our customers use their services and are moving in that direction.

We've had some downtime, but it's 99.5% stable. They can trust it. Hospitals are 24/7 driven, so we need to have a high uptime which is why we use HyperFlex.

It's a very scalable product because they have about 150 commercial services, so the scalability is very high, and the uptime is great. 

We use technical support if we have any issues or trouble with it. Cisco is always awesome. It's very easy to work with a Cisco tech.

Our customers know its time to switch solutions because of the demands from their users to deliver faster and to be more prepared for meeting their customer's needs. They're using my company and myself as a solution provider and a trusted technical adviser, so we work very closely with our customers in the decision making.

Our customers definitely see ROI. Cisco is involved each time we do a business case, and the customers today are very cost sensitive so they're looking for return on investment. That's also why they use Cisco because they can either expand the products or they can trade the products back to Cisco and get credits and then buy new products.

We also considered IBM and Dell EMC. They go with Cisco because they're using Cisco in most of their environments so it's the easy choice. As long as Cisco provides the technology and the features that the customer needs, they don't have the need to look elsewhere.

I rated this solution an eight out of ten because there's still a little room for improvement. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to connect with Cisco, use the resources that Cisco has. Be open, discuss with Cisco, discuss the architecture the customer designed, the customer demands, include Cisco all around, both the account managers, their technical solutions, the SEs, and so on. Use Cisco.