Cisco UCS Manager Reviews

I work for a service provider and we deploy this product for our customers. This is a tool to manage Cisco UCS devices: data servers, networking devices, or whatever Cisco produces under the UCS umbrella. 

If I wasn't using Cisco UCS Manager as a centralized console, I would be managing each and every server individually. UCS Manager gives me the ability to manage them all through a single piece of software.

I can deploy something in my 50-odd servers all in one go, in parallel, whereas if I was to do that individually, it could be a nightmare. I look at a single pane of glass to see how all of my hardware is doing.

There are quite a few components when it comes to operating servers, and the process has to be done in a sequence. If UCS provided a functionality to set up all of my sequences in one go, for example, I want to apply this piece of software now, and once this is done, I want to apply this piece of software, it would be great. I want to be able to schedule multiple sequential updates in one go.

Also, I've been trying the solution on a mobile device, and it doesn't work that great. They could probably do with redesigning the interface so it works for different device sizes and resolutions.

I have been using this solution for around eight years.

I rate the stability as an eight or nine out of ten. It's very stable.

I would rate the scalability as an eight out of ten. It's quite scalable. The solution is mostly used by the server administrators and network administrators. 

Cisco's tech support is a ten out of ten. They know their job well. 

Before, when we were working on Dell or HP servers, we would have to use individual remote management software for every server. HP OneView came in when Cisco UCS did. They're a competitor of Cisco UCS that also offered centralized management, but they were not as good. They could never do what Cisco UCS could do in terms of simplification and ease of use.

The setup is quite difficult. It's not a cake walk. I would rate it as a five out of ten. 

The deployment time really depends on the size. For the enterprise level, it takes a couple of days to do a complete Cisco UCS setup. However, if we were to just install the UCS Manager as a software, then it would take an hour or two.

I work for a managed service provider. For small customers, we get an expert in there and use an external person within the service provider to help. For large customers, we have employees who already have that expertise.

The staff required for deployment or maintenance depends purely on the size of the deployment. You could do it with one or two people or you could have a big team.

If you were using, for example, HP hardware, you would have more hardware faults and you'd be spending time having the parts replaced. Even though they might be under warranty, it's still a waste of time and tech efforts to have the parts replaced. Whereas with UCS, I save that time because I hardly ever see my good UCS setup having hardware failures.

Cisco UCS is more expensive than Dell and HP, but it is more reliable. I see less issues and it's quite stable. They don't do component pricing, so you get everything you need in a bundle. 

This solution is stable, agile, scalable, and Cisco provides good support.

My advice to somebody looking into this solution is to spend good time in designing the setup in terms of architecture. Have a good data center design architect to make sure they design a good solution. Take the setup slow because that's where you need to spend most of your time. When your setup is good and well-documented, it will make the admin's job easier.

I rate this solution as a seven out of ten.

We primarily usually use UCS Manager where we've installed from the ESXI Host and are hosting multiple UCM's.

There are occasions when we have or have had one of the VM licenses expiring and that required us to quickly create a new implementation of some issues. The solution makes the process easy.

If I'm playing with a new host, the most valuable aspect is that those servers can get a host up and running in quickly. 

I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own.

They should work to simplify the server creation template.  

The solution feels very stable. I seldom get UCS Manager related issues.

The solution is highly scalable, mainly because of the templates that make it easy for you to actually edit on the system.

Technical support is good, but I find it best when I log a call when the team in America is working so that it gets assigned to someone there. European support isn't as good as the US support.

I wasn't a part of the original setup team, so I can't speak to its level of difficulty. You only need one administrator to handle the solution once it's implemented.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

It's a good solution, as long as you can maneuver admin paths and are competent in running the day to day support tasks.

The solution is a bit complicated and complex, but the trade-off is you have a lot of functionality.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it to get the Cisco UCS Manager to configure all the devices, resources, and the possibility to interact with the CPU's memory and the profiles to manage. Most of the environments that we work with are related to VMware.

We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage. For example, we had a problem with a damaged motherboard in a bank, so we had to replace that. Cisco sent the RMA, and we switched the motherboard, the CPUs and the memory. When we did that, we inserted the blade server with a new motherboard and the validation of all the new characteristics of the motherboard and the mezzanine port was recognized easily through the Cisco UCS Manager. We have been told that fixing this issue would not have been easy with other brands as it was with the Cisco UCS Manager.

Getting a CLI report on routers, switches, or any other CLI configuration device is difficult. We do a show run or show start-up, and we get the whole configuration, but we do not have that in the GUI environment in the Cisco UCS Manager. Having a command to export the show run or show start-up will be nice.

We have been using this solution for four years, and we have been using the old version. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution, and we don't have any problems. If any public interconnects fail, we have high availability. We do not consider the Fabric Interconnect with the M6 version of the servers, and we need to get to inter-site service. It could be on-premises and also on cloud.

It is a scalable solution. We need some people for deployment, configuration, maintenance and support. They deal with the Cisco UCS Manager environment, so we don't get involved in VMware, visualization, or Hypervisor support. Specifically for hardware maintenance, we have at least ten technicians.

The technical support is very good, and I rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy.

I am not sure if we have received a return on investment.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Regarding advice, It has easier deployment. You have support, a wide range of support engineers at Cisco that can help with either the Cisco UCS Manager isolated deployment, the HyperFlex or the ACI deployment.

We primarily use Cisco UCS Manager for VDI and for connecting to a private cloud.

Cisco UCS has a fantastic portal to do the core configuration.

The connection between the Cisco UCS server and the network is easy to use and easy to manage.

This solution has all of the requirements for the network using public extenders.

The dashboard is awesome and you can easily get all of the information that you want.

The reporting functionality will give you any report you want.

I would like to see Cisco UCS optionally work as a hyper-converged system because right now, it only operates as a converged system.

Adding another layer of embedded virtualization would allow us to sell this as one unit, like Nutanix or VxRail.

I have been using Cisco UCS Manager for three years.

Cisco UCS is easy to scale.

The first time implementing this solution is a little bit complex. However, after you have the required hands-on experience, the second implementation will be easy. There are a certain number of steps and you follow the documentation.

I have recommended Cisco USC for multiple customers and in particular, one of them was a financial institution.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using Cisco UCS Manager is that sizing is very important. Once you start thinking about it, you have to understand the requirements, and sizing is important in this regard. Once you understand the requirements, you have to select the right model.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Cisco UCS Manager helps us manage all the blades so we can apply quality to templates. Recently, we have installed VMware vCenter from where we manage it. Cisco UCS Manager gives us control of all the blades with a maximum of 160 blades in a single UCS Manager. From there we can manage all the hardware related issues, like upgrades.

Cisco UCS Manager is a simple solution. Their technical support is good because whenever we need to generate a technical log, we can generate it from the console itself. It gives ease of management. Cisco UCS Manager is overall a good package because it offers a GUI interface and a CLI. We use Cisco UCS PowerTool to manage through.

In terms of what can be improved, the help dashboard could. Usually, we use vCenter. If I go to an option called Performance Monitoring, it gives us metrics in real-time.

The performance dashboard should be out in front of the UCS Manager - as soon as you log in you should see the dashboard. That should be improved. Another thing is the inventory management dashboard. Inventory is like a configuration database. So we should also be able to pull all the details which can give answers so we do not wonder about the HCI data.

Also, scalability could be improved in this solution.

Lastly, it should be more user-friendly because Cisco is a bit of a complex solution. So we are running the VMware environment and it has added capabilities of management.

Mostly it is stable. Sometimes when we upgrade there's a bug or something like that. Then we involve Cisco for the technical support and they help. I've been always grateful because whenever we need them, they are always available.

Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more. It has a limit of a maximum of 20 chassis which can hold up to 160 blades. Then, if we need 161 blades, we have to install another Cisco UCS Manager to manage it. That is not expandable. If you have a large volume of blades to support, like 1000 blades, we'd have to divide 1000 by 160 and that will be the number of UCS Managers in our environment.

I've been in touch with them. They are very good at the technical level.

The initial setup is straightforward and not so complex.

I think it is a 20 minute job to mount UCS Manager.

I implemented it myself.

Now people have many more options. If you're talking about HCI, Cisco has it. They have their own product called Cisco HyperFlex. Though if you are looking for a single short solution then you probably will not find it here.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate Cisco UCS Manager a seven.

We use this solution to manage our infrastructure.

The most valuable features are the conferencing in the video and audio, it's a promising solution.

Cisco has the edge on the data portion. The compatibility between the Cisco infrastructure along with the UCS manager or any collaboration solution definitely has more levels.

The Voicemail is smart, it does a good job. It is a luxury that Cisco is providing.

Firepower has weaknesses. I had to load several partitions to improve it.

A smart office solution provided us with a demo showing us the camera qualities. I believe that Cisco is moving forward with this.

In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to their security. Also, they have to introduce firewall compatibility in the UCS, as with Firepower where they have a dedicated box with their software, switches, and routing. It's a one-box solution and it would be a huge benefit for Cisco.

Cisco depends on other vendors like IBM and HP for the hardware. Cisco should improve its hardware manufacturing in regards to the UCS and the use of other vendor's hardware.

I have been working with Cisco for the last twenty-one years. Their technical support is outstanding. There is a huge availability across the globe for the first level of support and installation.

I am very happy with the support.

We deployed this solution on-premises.

Cisco is moving forward with its licensing.

VMware is one of the leading solutions in terms of the voice domain, but they have good competition with Microsoft 2019 that also has the CI solution that Microsoft introduced.

VMware has a good solution in terms of SDDC (Software-Defined Data Center) and now they have a new solution called SCI. It's a mature solution.

One of the negative parts of VMware is the licensing, everything requires a license. VMware is a solution that is costly at the end of the day. This needs to be improved.

Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing. They have a new solution called Cisco DNA where they have improved the security, OT environment, and IoT.

It is a good solution for WAN technology.

Cisco is on top of the infrastructure.

Cisco Wise Mail IT is now called Unified Messaging. The unity was the first introduction to Cisco for voice mail integrated with cross messaging and now they have a full collaboration solution in one box.

Cisco Tetration Technology has recently been introduced, but it has not yet matured in the market. We haven't used this solution yet as it is not mature yet. We saw a demo in Dubai, they showed us the functionalities.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our use case, from our point of view, is that we installed this product in data centers for our customers. I work with six customers currently, and I have to set up the data centers for each of them. For one of them, we run the Cisco UCS Manager. So I have hands-on experience with the setup from end-to-end.  

Usually, we are called by clients specifically about product suggestions. I often personally recommend Cisco UCS because of the high availability. The setup time is quick compared to other products in this category. When we are contracted we have to set up the network, the storage, and other parts of the environment. That means a network and storage link for each and every chassis. But here, because of the configuration of Cisco UCS, we need just one link for all the chassis. This helps us make for quicker delivery time.  

We also monitor the systems, we install and keep spare blades for each and every chassis. Just one or two blades are sufficient for the entire environment. That way, we can easily manage system maintenance. Also, the failover and the profiling system is good with the Cisco product. You can just move the profile to the new blade so that it will start working with the new configuration. This makes it easy during maintenance.  

The ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product.  

So far the only challenge we face with Cisco UCS is during firmware upgrades. If it happens that there is a failover, and we need to change something in the system, this is where we can run into problems. We can't upgrade the firmware for each component one-at-a-time. It is not a method that will work in a practical way in a larger or global network.  

Nowadays it is some sort of a status symbol or a business necessity for a customer to be in various geographical locations. Because the client can have locations in Australia and the U.S. — in different regions of the world — that tends to make the maintenance of the firmware more difficult. The various business locations offer challenges in that way.  

Usually, when we procure the blades, everything has the same firmware level. This makes sense and is fine if installing in a singular location and for new installations. Everything will match. If it is a new installation and the hardware was not procured at the same time, the firmware for all the components can easily be upgraded because it is still before the implementation.  

But later — say after one year — a customer needs to expand. If we are procuring a new blade, the new blade will come with the new firmware. When the new blade is mounted into the chassis, the old alignment will not understand the new blade because it has new firmware.  

In that case, you need to downgrade the firmware for the new blade or upgrade the firmware for the entire environment. During the firmware upgrades, we would definitely need to take downtime in some cases and the downtime would take too long. We face that challenge all the time in having to choose which path to take during the upgrade. But because of the obvious issues with upgrading the entire environment, it often looks like a better solution to just downgrade the one new blade. We need the option to downgrade or choose the firmware for the component because we cannot upgrade the entire environment. In many cases, we cannot take the downtime for the entire environment because of what it means to the network and the business.  

We should have chances to work with firmware levels in one or two firmware versions and it should be easier to do. Everyone would be comfortable with that. Otherwise, in some cases, there is no point in providing a new blade. Customers will hopefully grow and need new blades. We don't want any extra risk with downtime.  

So Cisco should make an improvement in the firmware upgrade process. No one is providing this kind of solution. But if Cisco would improve that firmware issue, that would be great.  

A new feature that I would suggest is to have the possibility of different types of connections. Within the full-width blade, there are two types of blade: full-width and half-width blade. In the full-width blade, when one link fails, the other link will take care of the entire load. The half-width blade doesn't have that kind of input. It has only one link. If one link goes down, the entire blade goes down. So Cisco should include the feature like that in the half-width blade so it functions more like the full-width blade and is not prone to failure.  

I have used UCS Manager for almost six years.  

The help that we get from Cisco support is really good, but there can be nuances with the incompatibilities in existing structures that cause complexity. These can take some time to resolve. But the resource is dependable.  

The initial setup is complex. I will have to spend a lot of time planning the actual implementation. When we execute the plan it will take about two months. The recommendations of the product to the client, the acceptance and the procurement could take as much as four months. But once they deliver the product, we will take a maximum of six to seven weeks to finish the implementation. This is the outlook for the plan but the implementation does not always work so smoothly.    

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. I use the UCS Manager and I think it is a good solution.  

We primarily use the solution for software computing within our organization.

The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects.

The automation within the solution needs to be simplified. 

In the next release, the solution should have a central view center or offer administration capabilities for different environments.

I've been using the solution for four years.

The solution is quite stable. We've never witnessed any bug or glitches. We also haven't experienced any crashes that would lead us to believe the stability is in question. It's very good.

The scalability of the solution is okay. You do get some scalability, but it's not fully scalable per se.

We've reached out to technical support in the past. The support they've provided has been great. We're satisfied with the level of service that they've given us.

The initial setup was complex. It was not straightforward. There's just too much effort to set up a simple environment.

The environment was quite large and the implementation process required a number of people.

Currently, we have six people who handle ongoing maintenance on the solution.

We used a consultant that was able to assist us with the implementation.

In terms of advice of how other users can implement the solution, I'd caution that it depends on what they like to use. If you need to have server usage, for example, for Oracle, for Microsoft Hyper V, VMware, or different solutions, then it's not the best.

For us, the complexity was too high especially when it comes to expanding it for other purposes.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.