I'm working just with the Generation 9 and Generation 10 as Generation 8 is obsolete. We are leaving that kind of solution. These generations are a little bit obsolete since the processor, and the spec of the Blades are behind a newer HP solution.
Right now, we're using that with a Citrix server and use it with VMware SX 7.0.
It's scalable, and it's stable.
The product has been simple to set up.
One thing that is already being fixed in the new solution is how you connect with the console of tech management of this Blade or other enclosures. Right now, usually, you have to connect one by one, and it's a little tedious. And besides, the better option or best option they have to improve is to consolidate the way you connect to this platform. Right now, for example, if the new solution (Synergy) has a way to connect to everything and is a one-view console, it would be ideal.
It could always use new tools.
It is a stable platform. The number of issues or the number of failures on the system that we have with this platform is minimal. It's reliable, and the performance is good.
This is important. Usually, you get a cluster configured on that platform. This cluster usually has critical services, and it's important that you put services on a stable platform. Specifically, with generation 9, we have four years with this solution, and in those four years, the issues or failures have been very few.
The solution can scale.
There are 30 people, approximately, who can access the console and manage the whole platform. The server that we have inside of it is related to the virtualization and might have more than 1000 users.
In the past year, support was very good. We got fast answers.
For example, if we have a Blade fail or something like that, the response was very quick. However, right now, it takes so long to change parts, it's not as good. For example, if you need to replace a part of the display, sometimes it takes a while, even if we have a contract. Even if we have an SLA contract, they take so long now.
Neutral
Compared with other brands like Cisco and Dell, HP is very stable and very scalable. It's very useful for the Intel platform that we use it is related to VMware or Citrix.
We like the HP platform and have used it all these years. We are very comfortable with it. It's one reason we want to continue with it. However, the price is not that good.
It is very straightforward to set up. It's not complex.
The length of deployment depends on the way that you configure the Blades. For example, if you're going to work with VMware, the time could be at least 25 to 30 minutes. It is not going to depend on the BladeSystem; it is going to depend on the time of the operate system deployed.
The number of people you need for maintenance depends on the monitoring system that you have. For example, if you have a good monitoring system for this platform you're going to need less than ten specialists, but if you don't have a monitoring system to check the platform, probably you're going to need more than ten people.
The prices right now for HP are high. It has the highest price if you compare it with other solutions like Dell, for example.
That said, I don't directly deal with contracts and can't speak to the exact cost.
We're a customer.
I'm currently using HP Blades for c7000 Enclosures. Also, I'm using two Synergy Blades with Synergy Frames.
The Blades are not being sold anymore, and HP is moving people over to Synergy. I'd advise new users to take advantage of Synergy Blades going forward.
I'd rate it a nine out of ten due to its general stability. Compared to other solutions in the market, HP is quite stable.
We use the solution for virtualization and as a physical system.
The product is very user-friendly and has many resources at the enterprise level.
Lenovo provides a 14 blade server, which allows for high resource consumption before upscaling is required when compared to other products.
This solution is also very good from a network and bandwidth perspective and I would recommend it.
The solution should come with cloud native applications to prepare for cloud based solutions.
Forced restarts due to free upgrades is an issue that needs to be resolved. We can manage this as we have high availability and redundancy, but without that it could be a real problem.
The level of customer support needs to be improved.
There is currently an issue with Lenovo switching out SAN switches from the chassis, which will cause problems for people who already have a set up with the SAN switch connected to the central storage. This could require an entirely different network, adding an additional cost for the user.
We have been using this solution for the past five years.
There is an occasional stability issue when there is a requirement for a freeware upgrade, which happens automatically. This can interfere with workflow and is something that needs to be dealt with.
The scalability is good as Lenovo provide 14 blades. This allows vast accommodation of resources in a single implementation which is important for an enterprise solution. Going with Cisco, HP or Dell would require you to purchase additional chassis, as they are limited to eight or nine blades per month.
We have called them during certain critical cases to avoid delays during production. I would rate the support between fair and good, there is room for improvement.
Previously we used IBM, but switched to Lenovo because it has the 14 blades instead of the eight blade server of IBM. As an enterprise level company Lenovo is more attractive to us from a budgeting and resource perspective. Switching hasn't caused us much of a problem.
The initial setup of this solution is easy, XClarity integration makes management and framework upgrades very simple.
In our environment, deployment complexity is more of a network issue than a hardware issue.
The 14 blade server allows significant room for upscaling before having to invest in another chassis. You would have to purchase another chassis much sooner in the case of an eight or nine blade server.
We also considered Cisco and Dell as potential options.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
We implement this product for 1,500 to 2,000 clients.
Our company has 2,000 developers who use the solution for integration with OneView to manage servers and enclosures.
We have multiple racks set up with different platform servers like DL, C7K, and Synergy. At least three enclosures are linked together in Synergy which is a prerequisite.
We set up multiple blade servers, install ESXi hosts, and add the blade servers to VMware as a host. We manage our 30-40 ESXi hosts through vCenter which is private. From there, we test and develop products that will be used in the vCenter application. OneView integrates with vCenter to manage resources.
The i3S module can be configured to provision storage to all blade servers and boot to any operating system without needing local hard drives. The module handles configuration for repositories and bootable iOS images so costs are minimized. The module is quite good and very cost effective for production.
The solution has great architecture and functionality.
The solution should support Cisco or other vendor interconnect models. Our previous platform supported extenders and interconnects.
A lower price model should be offered so customers at every level can use the solution. This would allow businesses to grow their data centers and be more competitive with Dell and Cisco.
I have been using the solution for five years.
The solution is very stable.
The solution is highly scalable. We can connect multiple enclosures together and increase the number of hosts or blade servers with no issues.
We contacted support with issues connecting to the internet and updating features. They were very helpful and provided solutions. A chat option is also available and useful.
Support is rated an eight out of ten.
Positive
The setup is easy and everything you need is preloaded. Deployment takes a two or three hours and includes configurations.
We implemented the solution in-house. A system administrator can repair any items that go bad during setup. The solution is not hard to manage with some experience.
The cost is high or a big investment and that is a drawback for some customers.
A one-time investment of $80,000 to $100,000 is needed for high-end servers that are very stable. If these are your needs, the investment is worth it.
I recommend using the solution and rate it an eight out of ten.
We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. These systems are for advanced data.
The template feature is very good, and it works well.
The Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location.
I like the level of complexity that this product offers because I have a lot of relevant knowledge, which makes troubleshooting and performance tuning easier.
This product uses a converged network adapter because it is the only way to provide flexibility with both fiber and ethernet connections.
I have been working with the Cisco UCS B-Series for approximately three years.
This is a stable product. However, if the customer is using devices from different vendors on the same network then there can be some small problems.
This product is very much scalable. Once you are using active/passive devices, you can switch them depending on the needs of the infrastructure.
Only one of my clients has this device implemented.
The technical support is very good. They are very knowledgeable and have taught us a lot.
I work with a variety of Cisco products. For example, I have a lot of clients that are using Cisco firewalls. As such, I have a lot of experience with Cisco devices including HyperFlex, UCS, Nexus 7K, 5K, 2K, and 1K virtualization.
Some of my clients are using products from vendors such as HP or Dell, rather than using a Cisco Blade Server. I also have customers using VxRack and VxRail. the Cisco products consume less energy, and I prefer to implement them.
The level of complexity for the initial setup depends on the client. For example, new clients usually only require a normal design. For clients that redesign their network, there is some inherent complexity.
In general, a hyperconverged system is very easy to configure.
This is a premium device and our clients are not as concerned about the reasonableness of the price compared to satisfaction with their productivity.
This is a product that I recommend. If somebody instead chooses to implement a Dell, then they will have a converged system or will be using NetApp. This is much more complex than setting up a hyperconverged system.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
