Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series Reviews

We are consultants, and we set up this product for our customers.

I like Cisco Intersight.

The price could be better. I think it's more expensive than VxRail. In the next release, I would like to see a better level of protection and availability with six clients.

I have been working with Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series for about two months.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is a stable solution.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is a scalable solution. We have five or six people working on this solution.

Technical support is good.

I used to work with traditional solutions such as the UCS-C220 product.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is expensive. It's a standard license, and we pay for it yearly. I think we pay about 700.

VxRail is cheaper, more flexible than HyperFlex, and easy to back up. Most customers see that VxRail is more affordable, so why should I go with HyperFlex?

I will tell potential users that I think it's a good product. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series an eight.

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 for this solution is remote office environments.

The product has helped our organization work seamlessly with staff in remote offices by providing storage and compute resources. These two things have made a big difference in how we are able to work effectively as an organization with diverse environments.

The best part about this solution is feature simplicity from the user end, besides providing storage and compute resources.

I don't really think it needs to be improved as far as the product itself. I can't think of anything yet that it doesn't already do. It fills our needs. It would be best if it continued to meet the needs of technology as it advances over time.

I think the documentation is a big con for Hyperflex. More substantial, straightforward documentation would help end users make more of their investment. There really isn't a problem with product functionality.

So far we have had no issues with the stability of the product. It seems very stable and has performed as expected.

We have not needed to scale yet, but I would say — based on what we know that product can do and our experience with it — that the solution is very scalable.

Technical support has been good. I've opened a few cases and I got great responses in a reasonable amount of time. 

We had a new situation and a new problem that came up in our environment so we started evaluating other potential solutions. The solution we had couldn't resolve the new issue. We researched and learned that HyperFlex could solve it.

The initial setup was very straightforward. No problems at all.

We self-deployed the solution without the need for external assistance.

Before we made our final decision, we evaluated VMware as a potential solution but felt that the HyperFlex better fit our needs.

I would rate the Hyperflex solution as a nine out of ten. This is not because HyperFlex is not meeting our needs but because nothing is perfect.

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 have been using Cisco machines when it comes to the HX-Series product line (or category) in our organization. We are quite satisfied with the product because we primarily deal with Cisco when it comes to the compute and network parts.

The plus point of this particular product is its usability. The management of this particular machine is very good when I compare it with other competitors, like a model from HPE or Lenovo.

It consumes a smaller footprint when I compare it with other competitors. 

Cisco should improve on having more technical documents available on their website, as well as keep them update-to-date. I would especially like to see more compute documentation.

I would rate the stability as high. The machines are stable and the downtime is minimal

The scalability is good. I can scale it on the fly. I don't really have to invest a lot of time in scaling up these machines.

Whenever I log a TAC case, I receive a good response from the teams, so the technical support is good. 

Sometimes when there are multiple technologies involved in a support case, this is when there is a bit of a lag. This something which Cisco could improve upon. Otherwise, the technical support is really good.

It was more of an upgrade. We recently migrated the data centers in my organization and decided to have the latest models and technologies available in the market.

The setup was somewhere in-between straightforward and complex. The reason being our data centers do not carry a single type of hardware. We have an array of vendors implemented in our data centers. We have to mix and match, ensure the interoperability is tested before implementation. This takes some time.

I think we did hire consultants from Cisco.

When we did benchmarking on this particular product line, the results were great and quite amazing. This is why zeroed in on this particular product for many of our use cases. For example, we use these machines for SAP systems. We also use this for many of our cloud ready applications. The product is performing quite well.

We do have a large Cisco footprint in our organization.

It is a good product to have in your data centers. Pick a good use case, then do a PoC and perform your own benchmarking. Once you are satisfied, go ahead with the product.

The latest models include all the newest cutting edge technology.

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 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. 

We use the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series primarily for VDI environments.

As I am the integrator for the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series I've seen how it has improved my clients' ramp-up time to actually get the environment going.

The ease of use and the graphical user interface (GUI) are two of the most valuable features of this solution.

One aspect that really needs to be looked at, is to fix the bugs issue.

Stability is 50/50 at the moment, based on the implementation experience.

I am very impressed with the scalability of this solution. It's easy to scale. 

I will rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

An initial setup is smooth when it's straightforward. When it has bugs, it's complex. With Cisco, we've experienced bugs with the software when we had to do updates and they were not fully documented.

I am the integrator. 

Our clients have definitely seen a return on investment using Cisco. They've even expanded the nodes almost within the first three months.

The biggest competitor is Nutanix and we considered using that first but when Cisco upped their game, their process became a little bit more streamlined. The hardware clients are more familiar with that.

Because of the bug problem I experienced with this solution, I will rate it eight out of ten.