Cisco UCS Manager Reviews

The solution is primarily used to manage user infrastructure.

It's difficult to pinpoint the exact features which are the most valuable to our organization.

The interface and the way it is constructed is very complex. They should work to simplify it. It's quite difficult for somebody who doesn't know the product very well. Users should be able to get proficient with it faster. There's definitely room for improvement there.

I've been using the solution for about six or seven years.

The solution offers quite good stability. We haven't had a problem at all with it. It's quite good.

We don't have too much equipment, so we haven't tried to scale it too much ourselves. However, the solution is actually quite scalable if a company needs to.

We have about six people using the solution in our company.

I'm not a system administrator, so I don't know if we plan to increase the usage. I personally don't intend to.

Technical support has been good so far. We haven't had any issues with them. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide our company.

We previously used different products. We had an IBM blade server but integrated the management, so it was a very different scenario to what we have now. The previous solution no longer exists, so we had no choice but to switch solutions and we chose Cisco.

The initial installation itself is not very complicated. However, the configuration of the solution can be quite complex.

Deployment times vary. It can be anywhere from a few hours to several weeks. It depends on the company and what needs to happen with the configuration. In our case, it took about a week to deploy it.

Currently, we're mostly paying for maintenance. As for the cost of the solution itself, I'm not sure what it is.

We were evaluating both Cisco and HP and eventually ended up choosing Cisco.

We're not partners with Cisco. I'm a user of the solution and also a consultant.

We're currently using the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure of the exact version number, but it was updated recently.

I don't have specific advice to others considering implementing the product. I'd just say that it's important that they know the product before implementing it.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. You can do pretty much anything you need to on the product, but it's quite complex. If they were able to simplify both the configuration and the user interface, I'd probably give them full marks.

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.

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 are using this infrastructure for the virtualization usage for our ESX servers.

The most valuable features are flexibility and management. If you want a non-standard network or SAN configuration then Cisco UCS is very flexible. 

You can manipulate the ESX server network connection or SAN connections with Cisco UCS.

We are comfortable using Cisco UCS in our virtualization environment. We can control anything in the network or SAN site.

Integration can always be improved, but that is not an issue for me because I work in a bank in Turkey. In Turkey, there are some regulations regarding Co//ab in the banking industry. Authorities are not permitted to use Co//ab for banking, so integration is not a use case for us.

The stability could use some improvements.

We have three data centers and if we could manage all three data centers using one interface, it would be great.

I have been using Cisco UCS Manager for four and a half years.

It is very stable. We had some issues with the batteries or memory, but if you look at the bigger picture it is very stable. 

This solution is very scalable. We manage two large Cisco UCS environments. There are many servers in it and we can grow and scale a lot if we want, it has a lot of room.

I am very happy with the technical support.

When you work with vendors such as HP, IBM or Huawei, you can face these types of problems, but it is not as important because the technical support is very good. If you have any issues they resolve your issue very quickly.

The technical support is fast and focused on finding a solution. If we have errors with the hardware or the software, the technical support solves it immediately.

The initial setup is very straightforward. In the beginning, it appeared to be complex, but after some time it was very straightforward and you can control everything.

It took three or four days to deploy this solution.

We had the help of the Cisco professionals for the deployment.

I am very happy with Cisco UCS. If I had to choose between other submissions, I would choose the Cisco UCS every time.

It's a wonderful product.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We mainly use this solution to manage the UCS C and B blades.

The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I also like the dashboard, as it is quite user-friendly.

We haven't had any stability issues so far.

We have about 20 users and I believe this program is scalable.

The technical support is good and the team was very helpful.

I installed and deployed the program myself and it was really straightforward.

I am not sure what the price is, but you buy the hardware and then you get Cisco UCS Manager for free. 

I would definitely recommend this product to others and my rating for it would be nine out of ten. The pricing can always be better, so I would like to see that being improved. 

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.

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.

It's a great tool for configuring all the features required for servers like storage, compute, and network. 

The best thing about UCSM and the UCS B-Series servers is its centralization, which means from one location we can configure storage, network and compute for all the servers that will be using it. It's very easy to add more servers with a very less effort.

So far for me, it's great and is a perfect solution. But the GUI needs some work.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.