Cisco Nexus Reviews

The primary use case for Nexus in our company is for the data center. Everybody that has access to our remote server rooms throughout the campus wants 10G data ports all the way across. 

This product helps us by resolving the issue of not having to install fiber everywhere. If you use Nexus, it has the 10G copper ports. That way we can just use the current infrastructure. Cisco Nexus saves us money in the long run.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it scales well. It supports a lot of servers. We don't have to come up with different designs for anything. That's the best part about it.

I would like to have the feature where you can install something like operf on it so you can do troubleshooting without having to configure operf on servers.

We had issues with Cisco Nexus during upgrades. When we first got the system, we were having some issues. The whole system crashed. 

The stability of this product works great.

The scalability of Cisco Nexus is wonderful. It supports the whole data centers. We have no issues with scalability.

They need to understand that when we call them and have an issue, it's our production and sometimes they want us to do repairs that would cause other issues. That's the biggest problem.

We are a Cisco shop. We don't have to worry about learning different commands with Cisco Nexus. It still has different commands because of the platform, but it was a lot easier to understand than if you're going through a different company.

The initial setup was straightforward on Cisco's part. Other customers that we work with didn't understand their equipment.

We installed it ourselves. We just ordered our equipment through a reseller. They weren't involved in any on-site work.

It was Cisco or Juniper.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight. When trying to do the upgrades sometimes there are issues. Sometimes you get a bug that Cisco doesn't know about. When you try to explain it to them, they always say it's impossible and can't be replicated.

You need to understand all the options, the servers and different applications you can run, and how Cisco Nexus supports the overall picture.

We use this solution in our data center core. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to grow into ACI.

I would like to see some development into the SAE world where you can virtualize. That would be the only thing I would like to see because I need to start virtualizing my infrastructure gear at some of the other data centers that I have.

Cisco Nexus has been very stable. No issues. It's been rock solid. We haven't had any issues with it in the last twelve months. It's been good.

The scalability of this solution meets the needs that we have. The density of it is a lot higher than the 7Ks. It's good for us from that perspective. 

I could take two 7Ks that are 16-chassis, get it down into eight and have twice as much throughput. 

The solution's technical support has been fine. We haven't had to use it much.

At this point, the newest solution was purchased out of necessity for end-of-life gear. It was a refresh. Our previous solution was 7K, 5K, 2K. 

The 2Ks and 5Ks were going end-of-life. We're starting to prepare for the 7Ks going end-of-life. We went with the Cisco Nexus 9K solutions because of this.

The initial setup of the Cisco Nexus series is very straightforward. We didn't have any issues. 

We already had a 5K, 7K, and 2K environment. Going to the 9Ks was straightforward. We were experienced in the Nexus area. It wasn't anything new.

Deployment was done by a supplier partner of ours, British Telecom. Our experience with them was good.

It's around $160K a year for our license.

We have a management contract with Cisco. They are our managed service provider. We didn't have much of a choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this product a ten because of the stability. Stability is my biggest key right now. Cisco Nexus has been stable since it was implemented last year.

It's a good product. I haven't had any issues whatsoever. 

We use the 9000s in a series of different things in both the data center and even in the LAN (Local Area Network). Mainly we just use the products for the management of all the traffic — nothing really crazy. Being in the government, we can't use ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) and certain other technologies yet. The 9000s are deployed for high-end layer two and layer three switching capabilities.

The solution has improved operations by helping us resolve bottlenecks throughout our infrastructure. A lot of it came down to the fact that these new products have a much higher throughput. So it kind of cleans traffic up and makes things a lot smoother in process.

The most valuable benefit of this solution is the ability to use all the different features like VX LAN (Virtual Extensible LAN) and PPC. We use the solutions in the data center and on the LAN side. For all intents and purposes, we were kind of hoping that the 9000s would take on the form of multiple contacts and VDCs (Virtual Device Contexts) like the 7000s have, but we haven't seen that capability come out yet.

The only real feature that we are hoping would evolve at some point is multi-contexts to get into multi-tenancy type environments. We are very interested in that with the 7000s. But we didn't like all the other robustness that 7000s had that we had to pay extra for. 9000s fit our needs a little bit better, but multi-contexts would be a really good feature for organizations like us, so we can separate different tenants logically and in a more secure fashion.

So far the stability is great. We never had any kind of problems with it. I really can't even speak to any questions about the stability because of the fact that we had zero problems. We've only been using it for about a year-and-a-half though. We are hoping to keep continue on that path and that everything continues to perform at a high level.

The scalability of the product is great. We buy way above what we really need. So when it comes to density, throughput, feature sets, software, etcetera, we find out what we need and we can just upgrade it. That approach has made things really good. We look forward to tapping into the ability to start automating things through Python and Linux customizations.

We were getting bottlenecks at throughput because our equipment was just getting too old and too slow. The whole architecture was archaic. We saw our chance to make a major change and not just replace a hubcap with a hubcap. We decided to go with a much better solution.

The setup wasn't really complex beyond the fact that we switched to a different platform that has a totally different operating system. It was a bit of a learning curve for us. We weren't heavily into Nexus, so current staff didn't have skills using that iOS screen immediately. But now it's a lesson learned, always very easy to get around after a little while.

We went through a reseller for implementation. Worldwide Technologies was the one we chose for the major part of this. We've also used Force 3 for some other smaller purchases and the integration of this kind of product, too. But our biggest purchase that changed our environment was through Worldwide Technologies.

Our experience with them was outstanding. They were willing to meet with us, engage with us and discuss where we wanted to go with the capability ad nauseam with no restraints. They would come to us and have workshops and everything without any kind of problems.

We went straight to Cisco and actually did not consider other solutions. It was partly because of familiarity. All of their staff were trained in what we needed. We can change product lines within Cisco if we needed to upgrade without any pain points. We didn't bother to consider other vendors.

I would rate the Cisco solutions as a nine out of ten because nothing is a ten. Everything can improve. It's a top-notch product and it has not done anything short of everything we wanted it to do. 

As far as advice, I would definitely say to try to look five years ahead, instead of just one or two. In our case, unique things about the nine K's are that they can run in iOS or ACI mode and that works with our planning. It was very favorable that we could maintain our current style of infrastructure that is not as automated. But then, through a transition plan, we won't need to buy new hardware to switch over to a more automated approach like with ACI. For us, that was a very favorable capability of this product that conformed to our future modeling. 

This solution manages our data center and is our core infrastructure switch. All of our firewalls and application servers terminate into the 5K.

The most valuable feature is its flexibility. You can put different blades in it to give scalability, but it is older technology.

This solution is only scalable to a degree.

This is a very expensive product.

Areas in which the solution have room for improvement are the interface, management, and reporting. You still have to go deep into the CLI to find issues.

This is a very stable solution. I have a separate model, a 7K, that has been up and running for seven and a half years.

The scalability of this solution is limited. You can only add so much hardware capacity to them, and because it's hardware based, you can't get the new features sets without putting new switches in.

Technical support is very robust. The Nexus line is the backbone of Cisco's data center. Anytime I have had to call technical support for anything, they have been able to assist us.

As a solution reaches end-of-life you replace it. We're using the Nexus 5K right now, and we're probably going to start looking at the 9Ks as these reach end-of-life.

The hardware that existed pre-5K was replaced before I joined the company.

The initial setup took place before I joined the company.

We used CBTS to assist us with our implementation.

This is a solid, reliable solution, but it is very expensive and it can only scale to a degree.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using this solution in the redesign of our data center network. Specifically, to provide an aggregation point for our data center services.

This solution provides our organization with more business continuity and high availability. This is because we can build them in ways with technology, like VPC, to make sure that our network is constantly up and available to our end users.

The biggest benefit to this solution is a high port density with high bandwidth. A big strength is the high bandwidth backplane, line rate speeds, and switching and routing packets.

We have uncovered things about some of the features where there is room for improvement.  

• There are limitations on some of the lower level 9K solutions where you can't do the same things that you would normally be able to do, like for instance the number of static maps that you can configure on it.
• There are limitations between different product IDs that I do not really understand, and I don't think that there is a really good reason for.

This is an extremely stable solution. I would say that heeding or taking note of the software versions that Cisco recommends is probably a good idea because that's where you find the most stable features. When you do that, or you follow the low level, baseline requirements, it is very stable.

The 9K series is very scalable because you have multiple different PIDs that allow you to put them where you want them. They can be on the core, your access, or your aggregational layer. You can do a lot of different things with them. They're a very scalable switching solution.

Cisco technical support is much like any other. The first level is often a little bit laboring to get through that process, but once you get to their second or third level of support, they are very knowledgable about the solution.

If you're dealing with a bug or a feature that you're not really understanding, it often takes a day to get through that process. If on the other hand, it is a situation where you have a priority one network down then you can generally jump through the ranks pretty quickly.

Our existing network had been neglected for a long time before I joined the company. We wanted to become more relevant with the times, knowing that we're pushing a lot of stuff to the edge, trying to get higher bandwidth to our core.

We were comfortable with Cisco's technology and Cisco's footprint, so we started by getting some information from them. After this, we began to have regular meetings with them to discuss our design and how it would be implemented.

I think that the initial setup would be complex for someone that does not know the technology. You do have to know some of the underlying technologies in order to use this solution because it's not something that you can just unbox and start using. There is a learning curve.

We purchased the product through a reseller, MTM Technology, and they are very good. We have a long relationship with them.

We are deploying the solution with our in-house team.

All of our costs including subscription, licensing, and support services are bundled together, and the cost is approximately $100,000 USD per year.

We were pretty focused on Cisco. That is where we wanted to go.

We are using this solution in a very specific use case right now. I do see more flexibility and availability, but for us, a pretty small network, I haven't really unlocked a lot of the features.

My advice to anybody looking to implement this solution is to take your time in finding the right design. I have worked with Cisco for a long time, and I've worked with other manufacturers like HP, Dell, and Arista. I think that Cisco is definitely the leader in the market, but I do think that if you rush through the design process then you might find yourself making decisions prematurely. 

This is a good solution, but there is some room for improvement on some of the things that we have discovered.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution is used as the core and access switches in our largest data center. We have several of them that make up our 40-gigabit uplink.

From my perspective, this is a nice solution. These units are easy to work with and they have a lot of features that you can't get anywhere else. It gives me an unparalleled ability to build out my environment differently than I would have if I was going with another vendor. This is true even if I was going with a Catalyst model instead of a Nexus model.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its stability. We don't have any problems with them, ever. It doesn't matter how much we hammer them or load stuff up on them, they never give us any trouble. I cannot say that for many other platforms that I operate, so I am really pleased with that aspect.

The ability to troubleshoot on this model is very good, and far beyond what you get on a different model. We have had some weird issues in our data center, and this has helped us in that regard. Sometimes you need a tech to help you with it because it's a little too complex, but at least you can see the data. I wish I could say that about, pretty much, anything else I have.

I would like to see Duo directly integrated with the Nexus hardware, instead of it being through the proxies, like how Duo works today. The way it works now really irritates me.

There is a lot of depth in the Nexus class, and it would help to make this more accessible to the users. We, for instance, are using them no differently than we would a Catalyst switch with VPCs. With that in mind, some of the more in-depth features would be nice to have, so having easier access to them would be beneficial.

We have been operating for a year and a half, and we've never had one crash. I couldn't say that for most other platforms.

We have not had an opportunity to scale this solution, but it seems very scalable. The VPC, virtual port channels, and the virtual domains, together, allow you to scale endlessly. I have never seen any problems with them.

I love Cisco Smart Net. It is the best thing in the business. I've never dealt with another vendor that comes even close to Smart Net.

This solution was integrated before I started, but we used to have Cisco 7K and 5K models. When we built the new data center, which was necessary after our company split in two, the 9K made more sense. It was the right choice for us at that point.

The initial setup seemed pretty straightforward. These units were a little different, compared to the Nexus 5K that I came from. Some commands are a little different, but other than that, it was easy to do.

There are a lot of more complex features in the Nexus class that we aren't using today, so maybe it would have been harder if we were using some of those. But, for a basic setup, it was easy enough.

We used a third party, Logicalis. The sold us the product and performed the basic installation. The VPCs were built, the management and IP configuration were completed before we took it over.

I felt like we paid for more than we got, but that was ok. They got the job done and we didn't have time for it. At the end of the day, I would rate them a three out of five.

Every Cisco product is more expensive than competitors on the market, which is just a fact, but from my perspective, it is worth it.

Our company is locked into one vendor for purchasing, which is a board decision. The only time we can use another vendor is if they sell it as part of a solution. Logicalis was the only vendor that had the solution we wanted, so that's who we went with.

This solution is ACI compatible, but we did not have time to get them on ACI before we went live. As a result, they will not make it to ACI.

There is always room for improvement, but I really love this solution. These devices do not give me any headaches. I design enough solutions for our company where, if they give me headaches, they come back out. It's that simple. I don't have time to keep going back and cleaning up the solutions that I've already installed.

If you want something that that is rock solid and you don't have to worry about, then go buy yourself some Nexus 9Ks. It's that simple.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We were doing a data center migration. We extended the network from the previous location to the new location. We had about 90% of the applications work seamlessly.

Cisco Nexus helped us do an entire data center migration in under six months. The solution allowed us to be able to do that under time and budget constraints.

For a very small subset, Cisco Nexus caused port flapping within the applications, which was weird. Call it an outage. It was one specific application, i.e. because of the way the application was routed through the switches which couldn't be handled that way. 

We had the good side because 90% of it works flawlessly. We didn't have to repeat IP everything. We didn't have to go through and take everything down. We just migrated it. But that one small subset went haywire.

The stability of Cisco Nexus is excellent.

The scalability of Cisco Nexus is excellent.

Cisco customer support is very good. We have very good technical support from Cisco. They get back to you in time, usually within four hours.

The setup is straightforward. I'd like to see the firmware and code upgradability to be slightly more intuitive. We are buying a new line of data center products from Cisco.

Our implementation and setup were directly from Cisco. The experience was very good. When we had a problem or needed them on the phone, they were right there.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at a ten. For the scalability, ease of use, and the way that we were able to deploy it to the data center: it worked. It was something very steady. 

Just go with it and make sure that you have your partners lined up.

The most valuable features are extensions and recorded scalability.

Areas for improvement would be the delivery timeline for the actual model, the length of which means we have to sacrifice a range of models because we can't wait six months for delivery.

I've been working with this solution for a few months.

In terms of stability, it's so far so good - we haven't faced any big issues at this point.

We want to extend out to other regions, which is very easy to achieve if compared to the typical traditional legacy layer 2 switch, layer 3 routing approach.

The initial setup wasn't simple or user-friendly. We're still in the process of fully deploying - currently, we've been working on it for around three months.

We used the Cisco team to implement, with whom we've had a good experience. We've also had support from HPE, who are very technically strong and able to answer any questions we have on the spot.

I don't like the Smart Licensing models that Cisco uses.

Cisco is one of the most stable solutions, regardless of which model. I would give this solution a rating of eight out of ten.