Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Reviews

My main use case for Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is hypervisors, using them as a hypervisor.

The feature I appreciate most about Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is that they are uniform and consistent, which saves time. You need to manage everything in one place.

The end-to-end visibility from Cisco assists in affecting my organization's troubleshooting capabilities because it definitely makes it more efficient.

I think Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers could be improved, but I'm not really a forward thinker; everything works pretty well with how we're using it. It's not really an improvement, but the solution is expensive. Additionally, the licensing gets confusing.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for fifteen years.

My experience with deploying Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is that there are not really challenges, but when we do have challenges, Cisco support has been right on it and able to walk us through things.

In terms of support for Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, I would rate it a ten.

Prior to adopting Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, I was using multiple other solutions such as HPs and Dells to address similar needs, and I prefer Cisco because all of our networking is consistent.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is not troublesome, but it is confusing. It takes a lot of time to navigate licensing and to work through the complexities.

In assessing the operational efficiency of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers in my IT environment, I would say approximately an eight. The solution is good.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is that it is good.

I face no specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco addresses.

I would rate this product an eight overall.

We are running AI on Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, and we can do it sometimes even without any GPU.

It is great because we can move from one server to another without changing anything. We can move all the identity of the servers between the servers.

If you are integrated into the Cisco management solution, it is very easy to handle. 

The performance aspects of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are very strong.

The ability to move from one server to another without changing anything is excellent. We can transfer all the identity of the servers between the servers.

The system works very stably, and we have not experienced any problems with stability and performance.

We see return on investment with Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers; otherwise, we would not use it.

We have not calculated exactly how long it took to realize return on investment. However, it is very important that the system has high availability, and we never have significant problems or outages.

The solution is not as economical as other vendors. When compared to Dell or HP Enterprise, it is somewhat more expensive.

I would strongly recommend Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers to others.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are useful for managing many workloads, for example, virtualization, CCTV projects, AIa, and ML projects.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are Intel-based servers, but they offer certain big features, like features related to Cisco UCS Virtual Interface Card (VIC). Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers hook up to Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects, and then it goes as a leaf in Cisco ACI, and such an architecture gives a good network and bandwidth for both north-south and east-west access. Bandwidth is never a constraint because of Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects. The rack server itself is mostly networking since everything remaining is available with any other vendor. With rack servers, Cisco UCS VIC capabilities are good, allowing them to connect to Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects, so bandwidth is never a constraint.

If you ask anyone, they would say the product is pretty expensive, making it an area of shortcoming where improvements are required.

As a partner of Cisco involved in the positioning of rack servers alone, I can say that it will never be a winning proposition for my company in the long run. There is always a need to make it a part of a bigger project in our company to make the product more sellable. Rack servers alone are very expensive. When it becomes part of an overall solution, Cisco provides customers with good discounts, making it a competitive product in the market. There is always a break-even point, so only after a certain amount of value is invested and derived does the value of the discount on the product start to kick in, making it an easily sellable product.

In the future, high-density servers can become very important, meaning Cisco should introduce four or eight CPU socket solutions that can really help. Cisco should start building reference architectures with the likes of Schlumberger, not only with just another oil and gas application vendor but with all application vendors. Once you have reference architecture, the customer always reaches out to the product that offers something Schlumberger likes and other application vendors. If Schlumberger recommends Cisco to others, then it becomes easy to sell it, and it gives confidence to the customers since the application vendor supports products from Cisco.

The scalability of the product is an area of concern where Cisco needs to focus on making some improvements.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for five years. My company has a partnership with Cisco.

The product's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The challenge related to the solution is related to the number of CPUs per node.

The solution is suitable for enterprise-sized businesses.

Technical support for the solution takes a long time to deal with root cause analysis. I rate the technical support a seven to eight out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase was pretty simple, so it's not very complicated. Once you have the design in place, I think the setup phase is pretty okay.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model for most of our projects in Qatar.

Speaking about the comparison of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, there is nothing unique about the servers offered by Cisco since they are mostly Intel's consumer-grade servers. The only thing you need about Cisco's offerings is Cisco UCS Virtual Interface Card (VIC), and then it connects to Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects. When we talk about the ecosystem, the solution becomes quite unique, but apart from that, it's pretty much the same since there isn't much you can do with rack servers.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

The Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers support our communications manager, deployments for Cisco Unity Connection and presence server, and Contact Center Enterprise, primarily for collaboration.

The best feature is the flexibility to virtualize virtual machines in the product. The UCS is a server where users create virtual machines and deploy servers.

The solution could improve the password reset and recovery procedure.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers as a partner for eight or nine years.

The stability is good. We have never had any issues in ten years of deploying the solution. There may be a VMware bug or machine power outage. The UCS C-Series hardware doesn't have any problem with the equipment.

The scalability is good. The solution includes all technical requirements or software licenses under the main SKU. If you need more space or storage in the hard disk or more RAM. It is easy to order additional parts or additional SKUs to scale the product.

Cisco solves any issue with the hardware or software. I always receive good service and support. The support is important for the customers. Cisco is 24/7, 7 days a week. The support is excellent.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy. Cisco documentation, specifically the UCS C-Series, is excellent. They have an installation wizard, so you can follow the step-by-step and finish the initial configuration. It takes around two hours to complete. Two people are required for the physical installation, but I do it myself for the logical configuration.

Cisco is expensive but has many more features, integrations, and support. Other brands are relatively cheap, but post-sales support is very decent.

I advise you to check the documentation. Cisco has very detailed documentation for each solution. You can find an installation guide, solution guide, and end-user guide. The installation or implementation process is very easy after the technical documentation, specifically with UCS servers. Also, check the engineer’s knowledge about Hypervisor for the virtualizations in the server. The UCS server has a Linux operating system, but you must deploy Hypervisor.

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

We are using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for governments. They have some departments with applications that run on this solution.

The most valuable features of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are integration and customization.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers can improve by providing customization features to allow us to deploy them on the cloud. For example, we need VMware to allow us to accomplish a cloud deployment.

Other solutions such as HP, Dell, and Samsung, are using VMware at a low cost. However, in Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers we are bound to use the Ninite software.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for approximately three years.

This is a highly stable solution.

I rate the stability of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a ten of ten.

The support from Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is responsive and overall effective.

I rate the support from Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used VMware, Dell, and other Hypervisor solutions.

The initial setup of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers was simple.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

The price of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is high.

I rate the price of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. However, my management wonders why we choose such a high-priced solution when we need to purchase third-party solutions to have cloud capabilities.

I rate Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers an eight out of ten.

I use the solution for routing. 

The C-series is the most valuable. 

The improvement should be done as per customer requirements. 

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for four years. 

It is a highly stable solution. 

It is a highly scalable solution. Twenty four users are using the solution. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. It's just create a script and then you upload it. The deployment takes two to three hours. 

The solution is moderately priced. 

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

The primary use is for virtualization.

They are currently used for VMware management.

On the Cisco side, there is a benefit in terms of server management. Cisco provides UCS Manager, which is a multi-tenant site manager. We can manage multiple sites while maintaining disaster recovery, a feature not available on other platforms.  That's about the added value.

For the Cisco side, improvements could be made in terms of scalability, costing, available capabilities, or support for multiple types of hard drives. 

Cisco currently supports a limited range of hard drives, so if possible, they can maintain further overhead rates and broaden support for various types of hard drives.

Another areas of improvement include pricing and scalability. 

We have worked with Cisco UCS for around six years. Some of the servers are still running.

We are stable right now. We are using 50 users. We use Cisco UCS C240 M5 Rack Server.

There is very little scalability for the cluster. If you need a higher availability, there is a user limitation. So that is the low side.

We have around 5 to 16 customers using this solution. They are mainly in the educational sector. 

Cisco's technical and learning support is better than Dell. Cisco provides a learning platform for technical guidance and free access for deployment engineers within our subscription, unlike Dell, where we have to pay for every enrollment.

The setup process of the UCS is simple. But the one setting it up must know how to use the UCS manager.

The deployment doesn't take a long time. UCS provides two options. One is from the local console. The other one is from the UCS manager.

So, from the UCS manager, we can autopilot to deploy into multiple servers at the same time. It takes around 20 minutes to deploy all the hypervisor solutions again.

The deployment process is very simple. We can get the firmware level and the operating system from the website. So we download it from there. And, using the console or the UCS manager, we can enroll it.

We have a Cisco-certified team responsible for managing the Cisco side.

Our customers don't pay for licenses. As a service provider, we cover the costs. They only pay for the services they use.

The subscription fee is on an annual basis. We always use annual. There are no extra costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Evaluate the price and look for scalability. Cisco's cost has increased post-COVID, so exploring other options is advisable.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten due to its scalability and expansion.

We use the solution for our virtualization.

We run most of our virtualization on Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers and it is always stable, especially when compared to other solutions we have.

The most valuable feature of the solution is performance.

There is room for better integration with other brands. We encountered some issues when integrating with other platforms on Cisco. For example, we had a Dell EMC and it experienced difficulties at times. The connection would often drop speed and other issues. Cisco expects us to purchase all of its products, so anything from an outside source tends to cause problems.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for around six years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability a seven out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution is expensive and I give the price a four out of ten.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We did not see a return on our investment, so afterward we questioned whether it would have been wiser to go with Dell or HPE, as they had offered cheaper options. To my knowledge, HPE has had performance issues in the past. We did consider this before making our decision.

For organizations that are already utilizing Cisco racks, the solution will work great, otherwise, I recommend exploring other options.

We use these rack servers for terminal operating systems.

The initial setup could be easier.

I have been working with Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for five years.

This is a stable product.

For our use case, this product is scalable up to 16 blades, including two sites. I don't know how well it would scale beyond that because we don't have a big site.

We have between 400 and 500 users, without plans to increase that number at this time.

The technical support from Cisco is fine.

I would rate the support for this product a four out of five.

I have used several different types of rack servers in the past, including others from Cisco such as the B-Series, Dell, and HPE.

I currently use the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series. It provides additional features, such as automatic deployment.

This initial setup is more complex than the Cisco HyperFlex, although ultimately, it is okay. It took us approximately one day to deploy.

I would rate the initial setup a four out of five.

We completed the deployment in-house. We have a combined team that is used for the deployment, troubleshooting, and maintenance of our products. We don't have a team that is dedicated to this product.

The maintenance for this product is good.

We have to pay for the VMware and Cisco licenses.

In summary, this is a good product and it's sustainable. We have had no issues with these servers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Most customers use the C-Series server to install VMware solutions. It's deployed in a data center to handle the computing. Some customers use bare metal. Others are virtual. I am certified in VMware, so I've done a lot of VMware solutions, like integration between physical and virtual networks.

The VIC card is the most important feature.

I started using C-Series Rack Servers in 2013. It was the M3 edition when I started. Today, it's M6.

The C-Series is a hundred percent stable because it uses an Intel processor with Samsung or Hynix RAM. Computing depends on RAM, CPU, and hard disk. The latest release has an AMD option, but I've never worked with it. 

The C-Series is not designed to be as scalable. They are designed to have enough RAM and enough CPU on their own side. If you want scalability, it's better to choose the B-Series— the Blade Servers — because those are much more scalable with Fabric Interconnect.

Most of the time, the C-Series is a standalone server. However, if you're talking about scalability in terms of RAM and CPU, they are excellent because you can install three terabytes of RAM. which is more than enough.

I've never contacted Cisco support because I can solve issues on my own most of the time, but my colleagues say that Cisco support is one hundred percent reliable.  

Obviously, when you have unusual issues, it's not fair to assume that the first line of support can solve your problem. They definitely need to escalate. It's not reasonable to expect that the first person you reach at Cisco can answer all of your questions, but when you are dealing with Cisco, you should be confident that they can help you. 

Deploying a C-Series rack is straightforward. It comes in two flavors. You can deploy it the standard way or do it over Fabric Interconnect, which can handle the B-Series and C-Series together if you have the license. Cisco's CIMC is much easier to deal with than the HPE's iLO. One engineer is more than enough to deploy and maintain the solution.

The server itself isn't costly at all, but the CPU and the RAM can be pretty expensive. You can buy a UCS for $2,000, but the RAM and CPU can cost up to $80,000. The most expensive asset is the intel processor, but it depends on how many cores you want and the technology you want to use on your CPU, like Hyper-V, etc. 

I rate Cisco USC C-Series Rack Servers 10 out 10. If you plan to buy a C-Series, you should be clear about why you want to use it because the uses vary. different. Whether you're using Cisco, HPE, Dell or any other brand, it's essential to define your use case. For example, are you using it for a simulation graphics, calculations, etc.?

Depending on the use case, you might want to go with a small server with more CPU. Sometimes you need a light CPU with a powerful GPU. For example, if we have a C-Series with four CPUs at the same time, or we have a server that's handled two CPUs at the same time—the purpose is crucial.

C-Series is good enough compared to other competitors like HPE and the other ones. The HPE C20 is one unit and has a lot of RAM support, but the C-series is number one, in my opinion.