FlexPod XCS Reviews

• Management of solution
• Integration between technologies
• Single support for all technologies involved

It's easy to deploy and easy to scale when you need. It’s a proven architecture that works with tools for virtualization or private cloud environment. When you need to scale you just buy another rack or hardware to put in data center and can manage centrally. You don’t need to do much configuration to get it working.

The price, but nothing from a technical perspective.

It's got very good stability. Its UCS platform is outstanding because it combines with Cisco network with good hardware.

You just add racks as needed.

I haven't had to use it.

They need to make the platform a little cheaper in Brazil.

Make sure you have infrastructure, as it needs to have a good datacenter infrastructure otherwise you won’t use 100% of solution.

Unified management is valuable, and it has a smaller footprint than non-unified solutions.

Leveraging the expertise of NetApp, and getting a lot of third-party support for it. We’ve been able to transition to a hands-on approach, which is good thing. We were thinly staffed, but now we can properly staff to be more hands-on with our system using FlexPod.

Make sure there’s current centralized virtual desktops. I get caught in the upgrade matrix quite a bit, which is an indication that it hasn’t been tested. Need more currency in IMT.

It's solid, but it’s difficult to integrate newer hardware because it's kind of locked down. It can be disruptive sometimes, because it’s something that you don’t want to have to make a lot of changes to. It makes it difficult to consolidate when you're adding stuff on, and wanting to be consistent for software and hardware sets. 3240 limited to four SAN nodes in a cluster was problematic for us.

It's scalable, but it takes someone to make the right decisions in terms of planning and sizing.

It was already in place when I got there. From the inside-out, it can be complex because its biggest problem is that if you stray from centralized virtual desktops, it can be difficult to work with.

Must have a sense of how everything operationally will be going into FlexPod. Must plan scaling up and out. The problem I run into the most is unanticipated growth, so keep track of growth factors and do not overextend FlexPod. It is usually a performance vs. capacity issue.

• Reference architecture is very useful so we know how to plug it in
• We can scale each component differently and separately
• Each component is best of breed, and better than the competition

Originally, we already had many components, and we never combined it as reference architecture before. It was easy for the company to learn. Also, the different components can be scaled differently. We can put it in different sizes and make each component a different size easily.

Simplification of configurations. Easy instructions/configurability for adding components and expansion. It loses points because it could get simpler.

Excellent stability. We were already pretty stable with separate components, but now we’re more stable.

Fantastic scalability. You can scale each component separately, which is very useful.

Good tech support. One throat-to-choke option is nice, but we also have alternate sources of information.

Pretty straightforward. We used professional services for the first configuration, and for expansions we did it ourselves with no problems.

Make sure you have expertise in Cisco and NetApp components so you can operationally ace it over, because even though it’s a reference architecture, you have to know about each component. Have in-house expertise, otherwise, it’s the best of the products out there.

Flexibility of the platform. It allows you to grow whenever you want, and to build the data center as you want. It can get associates to change their work because they don’t have to do grunt work as it has automation, network, and datacenter design. The job is done, and you don’t need to worry about it. The team can be freed up to do more interesting IT, such as building datacenters.

It’s an important tech, and should be a part of IT admin. It’s a one-stop shop that keeps the lights running. It’s not a matter of money, but a matter of staffing.

The capacity to grow at a very rapid pace at a quarter of the cost in terms of physical hardware and staffing -- just put up rack, deploy FlexPod, and it’s up and running.

It compares well with Vblock to provide centralized datastores to all locations that are all linked together with a datacenter fabric.

It needs to go down the Vblock way, because in an integrated system, you need a big block of technology between the reference architecture and the lego-type system.

No issues encountered.

It's very scalable, and able to grow with the business.

You can add more disks, and computer power, which is very simple to do. It takes care of adding blocks back into your data center and any upgrades to storage, hardware, or network.

We often work with our TAM who are always around to help us work better as an interface between our engineers and NetApp’s, so we’re escalated to Tier 1.

We don’t even need to talk to Cisco because their tech support is unified with NetApp.

It loses points because they’re a little behind the competition in the hyper-converged infrastructure pace. When you get to see what the other environment sees, you know they need to catch up to others.

It’s a good solution to implement, and easy to get to work, it’ll provide flexibility and agility you need for a datacenter, but it’s a start of the journey. You need to be on top of it.

The features that are the most valuable to me are the simplified setup and administration, and the scalability of the system.

FlexPods are very easy to setup and maintain, and they are scalable. That brings a high level of value to companies because the system can be upgraded and utilized for many years.

A unified interface for all the components would be a great start. Since FlexPods are a mixture of three different technologies, each component must be separately administered.

I have been using and installing FlexPods for the past three years. I have installed FlexPods in multiple environments as well as with multiple models of hardware.

Each deployment is different for every client. The use of the FlexPod architecture is different nearly every time in some fashion. Any issues that arise come more from a design aspect than the actual FlexPod itself. Clients tend to design around their needs, and the FlexPod is flexible enough to accommodate, if installed correctly.

FlexPods are wonderful for tech support and customer service. Because it is a mixture of three different technologies, Cisco and NetApp and VMware have worked out a deal that you can call any of their support numbers and they’ll get the other vendors on the line as needed to troubleshoot your problems. This is a great way to handle things, instead of you having to call each vendor separately and being given the run-around.

Many companies have used different solutions in the past. Blade server and bare metal servers have been around for a long time, but Cisco got it right with UCS. The UCS computing platform is the key to making a FlexPod what it is, and the primary reason for clients to choose it for their computing needs.

The initial setup of each component is very simple, and usually taking only a few minutes for each. Once each part is setup, it then becomes more complex to integrate them together. Typically, a good FlexPod setup, following the validated designs, can take four to five days to build, then another couple days to verify.

I am the vendor, so I do the delivery of the FlexPod and installation and configuration. My advice for implementation is to have a qualified, knowledgable vendor either do the installation, or assist. I am not saying this from a business standpoint, but from personal knowledge of the product. It is something that can be done by anyone, but it would take less time and be setup with best practices in mind if you get someone who knows what they are doing.

ROI is very difficult to truly quantify, but as far as pricing goes, it totally depends on the size of the system and what components you desire. Because the FlexPod is really just an architecture based on standards, pricing can range all over the place. For small businesses, you might want a FlexPod mini. For larger corporations, you might want multiple FlexPod installations.

Licensing is also an interesting topic since you will need to license UCS for the number of chassis as well as rack servers. NetApp needs to be licensed by the features you intend to use. Nexus licensing is based on the number of ports in the switch if I remember correctly. Then it comes down to what kind of installation you’re doing for any additional licensing. If you’re installing VMware, you need licensing for that product. If you chose to install Hyper-V, then licensing is different. If you choose Oracle Linux, or Windows, or something else, licensing changes again. What I suggest if to get a vendor in to help discuss and design the FlexPod around the needs of the company.

FlexPod is is not really a product, but more of an architecture based on Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS), Cisco Nexus Switches, and NetApp Storage. It is one of the best unified computing architectures out there, and is highly scalable.

FlexPods are perfect for nearly any environment, can be scaled out to fit the needs of the company, have longevity, and can be managed globally. Get a vendor who knows what they are doing and they can help you be successful.

Having VMware, Cisco and NetApp on the call when there is an issue is very valuable to us.

When we had a VMware issue that NetApp was saying was a VMware issue and vice versa – getting them all on the conference call at the same time was priceless.

A single place to initiate support to get them all at once – being able to call one place would be great instead of having to initiate with each vendor first and then ultimately finding out you need everyone on the phone. So, a specific FlexPod support instead of having to go through NetApp, Cisco and VMware separately would be something they can improve on.

Extremely stable – everybody has outages, but we've been satisfied with stability.

For our needs, it meets them.

Getting everyone on the phone together, they have all been responsive and helpful.

Initially complex, but that had to do with our environment.