HPE BladeSystem Reviews

We are using it for our hypervisor. Within our organization, there are roughly 2,000 users, using this solution. 

Software-defined hardware might sound counter-intuitive, but it is the way of the future.

HPE BladeSystem is easy to use. It conserves a lot of space.

The management side of this solution could be improved. In our case, it's managed via OneView — it's an appliance. It could be better, its interface doesn't feel 100% intuitive. 

In addition, HPE tech support is very poor.

I have been using HPE BladeSystem for three years.

HPE BladeSystem is both stable and scalable.

A contractor implemented this solution for us.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give HPE BladeSystem a rating of eight.

I am using the HPE BladeSystem for Hyper-V servers.

The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management and the robust design.

I have used HPE BladeSystem for approximately five years.

The stability of the HPE BladeSystem is good.

The HPE BladeSystem can scale very well.

We have approximately 2,000 users using the HPE BladeSystem. We have many students and professors using it.

We are using HPE BladeSystem on a daily basis.

We have not needed to contact support because we have not had an issue. However, the partner support we had could improve. There are some disadvantages compared to Dell. The questions that are asked from the support are too lengthy, this causes a delay in support.

The initial HPE BladeSystem was easy.

We have the engineers from HPE set up the HPE BladeSystem for us.

There is a one-time purchase for the HPE BladeSystem.

We evaluated Dell before choosing HPE HPE BladeSystem. They were very similar solutions. However, after the negotiation by our commercial team, they choose BladeSystem based on price.

I rate HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten.

HPE BladeSystems are used for computing workloads.

HPE BladeSystem provides good commuting performance.

The other similar solutions used different CLI commands than HPE BladeSystem. The HPE BladeSystem CLI commands should be the same as the other companies which would make it easier to manage. It would be better for the system administrators to manage HPE BladeSystem and other systems together. I wanted to configure this service with the CLI but the commands are different than the other solutions making it a bit more difficult.

I have used HPE BladeSystem within the past 12 months.

HPE BladeSystem is stable.

I have not used the support from HPE.

I have used HPE ProLiant DL Servers previously.

When comparing the HPE ProLiant DL Servers to the HPE BladeSystem, the HPE BladeSystems are compact and need less space for installation. They can provide the same computing as the HPE ProLiant DL Servers in the same unit and are a lot easier to manage.

HPE BladeSystem is easier to implement because of its size than other solutions. It's easy to install, easy to build up the BladeSystems, but the enclosure is too heavy.

I would recommend this solution for large enterprises. Medium-sized companies would find it difficult to afford the HPE BladeSystem's overall capital expenses.

I would recommend this solution to others. If they require a system for computing workloads then this is a good solution.

I rate HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten.

My use cases are for enterprise software such as banking, core banking, reporting software, and databases.

For me, the most valuable features are integration and simple defining.

BladeSystem is an old-fashioned server and not very well developed for new features and new areas of data centers, which is not very good for enterprise companies. In the next release, I would like to see an improvement in the UI.

This is a stable solution.

BladeSystem is scalable, but I think it needs to have a little more scalability of input in the future.

The initial setup was intermediate - not very easy but not too hard.

The technical support is good - I've had no problems with them.

I would give this solution a rating of seven out of ten.

BladeSystem was done really well.

I like the stability.

I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother. We can't pull the servers from the current Blade, over to the NonStop system because of the different connectors.

I feel that it is a waste of money. I invested in it and I can't port it over.

The back of the blade system from their older generations will not connect to the new chassis. You will need buy new servers to the NonStop chassis.

HPE BladeSystem is a stable product.

We are a small-sized company.

We use only HP products. 

Every generation of NonStop is just an upgrade from their BladeSystem. They could have let be known that it was BladeSystem two, but they just gave it a different name.

The initial setup is complex. You need the help of a consultant.

We have two people to deploy and maintain this solution.

BladeSystem is a little bit cheaper.

I would rate HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten.

We use HPE BladeSystem as an internal cloud.

HPE BladeSystem makes it much easier since it's been there. We can set up the hardware once and just provision what we need from that.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of management with the hardware.

We are very pleased with using this solution.

We are very happy with what we have, but HPE is not going to continue with BladeSystem. It will be discontinued so we will have to change to another product shortly.

I have been using HPE BladeSystem for approximately seven years.

We use the BL460 series and the version is C7000. We have a mix of Gen9 and Gen10 servers.

Stability-wise, it's been very good for us. 

We have had very few issues with it, hardware-wise, and even very few software issues with it. 

Overall, the HPE BladeSystem has been very stable for us.

For our purposes, it has worked exactly the way we expected it to. 

It has been very scalable for us. We have been able to add additional servers, add additional C7000 chassis, and it just continues to work. It has been very scalable and worked very well.

We have two C7000s, and a total of 17 blade servers. Most of the servers have the attached storage blade for increased storage, besides what's in the blade itself. 

Our initial implementation included a couple of NAS units, but they were very slow, which is why we went with the storage blade units. That gave us better performance.

We have upgraded to some newer NAS units from HPE, and they've worked very well for us, which is why we are starting to slowly shift in that direction. That may change now since we're going to have to go with a new platform the next time we do an upgrade.

I have contacted technical support once or twice, and it was very good. 

We were very pleased with the support that we received.

We went from individual servers, or individual racking at servers, to the blade system.

The initial setup was different than anything we had done before. It was a little bit complex to get initially set up. But, once it was set up, the ongoing management has been fairly easy.

If I had to do it again, it would be very easy to do, now that we're familiar with it.

We rolled it out over time. We modified our implementation a little bit as we went along, as we discovered different features and different capabilities.

I maintain the solution. It only requires one person.

I am not familiar with the pricing.

We will be evaluating other solutions since we discovered that they are not going to be making the BladeSystem anymore.

We have had good luck with them, and good success with them. 

We haven't had any issues that are major issues. We have been very pleased with it.

I would rate HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for media and backup servers.

The solution has good performance. 

All around, it would be nice if the solution were cheaper. 

I have been using HPE BladeSystem for around 15 years, which is the entire length of my career. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I do not have experience with technical support. 

The decision to switch from other products to the current solution was not within my purview. 

I do not have experience with putting the solution together, as it comes pre-configured. The installation is easy. 

Items which are more cost-effective have a greater tendency to be refurbished. This is why I don't really consider the pricing to be problematic. 

This said, it would make everyone happy if the solution were less expensive. 

I would recommend the solution to others. 

I rate HPE BladeSystem as an eight out of ten. 

As a company, as a service provider, we primarily use the solution in order to give service to other companies.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's an easy process. 

Technical support is pretty good.

The solution is quite mature.

The stability, in general, is good.

I have noticed that the solution does provide a very good ROI for companies.

I've dealt with the product for about 20 years at this point. It's likely been two decades. I've spent a lot of time with it overall.

The performance is okay, 

The scalability is okay.

Technical support is good. They are going a good job overall. I would describe them as helpful and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support that is on offer.

I have not found the initial setup to be overly difficult or complex. It's straightforward. The process is simple. 

The solution is one of the best in terms of providing an excellent ROI to its users.

We are HPE partners.

We mostly deal with eh latest version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number. 

I'd recommend the solution. It's a good choice for the right use case. A company needs to look at it and decide if it's right for them and their purposes, however.

Overall, I would rate the solution at eight out of ten overall. We've been mostly happy with its capabilities.

In my company, they tried to convert to hyper-converter due to the fact that the on-premise server is still a low demand. Some workloads we have moved to public CoW. We tried to reduce our footprint, our data center, to use only hyper-converged. It's good for that purpose.

The solution is very easy to use. It's not overly complex. I'd describe it as a user-friendly product.

The solution is stable. The performance is good.

The solution can scale to a certain extent.

It's an old-fashioned technology now. 

I'm not sure precisely what should be improved. I can't recall any missing features.

If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company.

I have ten years of experience with this solution. It's been about a decade. I've used it for quite a while.

The solution is very stable. We find it to be quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is very good.

While the solution is pretty scalable, every company has its own context. Therefore, the scaling process might be different. In my future plans, for example, it's hard to reduce my footprint, as the workload has moved to CoW. Something that's based on-premise has limited parameters. That's why I'm trying to use the totally hyper-converged system. 

I don't really have any direct experience with support from HPE, however, when they had the reports about the system, I would say the review was that they were okay. There have been no complaints. We're satisfied with the level of service, from what I can tell. I have heard nothing negative about the level of service.

I'm not an operations person. I can't speak to how easy or difficult it is to implement the solution. It's not an aspect I worried about or specifically had to deal with.

As I wasn't a part of the implementation process, I cannot speak to if there was any assistance with the process. 

We are simply a customer and an end-user. We don't have a professional relationship with HPE.

I'd rate the solution, on a scale from one to ten, at a nine. We've mostly been quite pleased with the product and its capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users, companies, and organizations. 

We are primarily using the solution for a hypervisor.

The solution is very easy to use. It's user-friendly and simple to navigate.

The space conservation it provides is excellent. It helps compact the server.

The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable.

The solution can scale. A company can expand it if it wants to.

The solution could use better management capabilities. The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can definitely scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

We have about 2,000 end-users currently.

We do plan to continue to use the solution.

While HPE Synergy has quite good technical support, on other HPE products, it's not quite as good.

That said, on Blades, we've never really used the technical support.

We previously just used normal HPE servers. Other than that, we've never used another solution. We've never used a Blade system.

We did not handle the installation ourselves. I can't speak to how easy or difficult it was to execute.

We have about 20 people that can handle any maintenance.

We hired a contractor that implemented the solution for us. We did not handle the process ourselves.

We paid for the hardware itself. I can't speak to the actual costs. It's not an aspect I directly deal with.

We're a customer, however, indirectly with HPE. We purchased the solution through a reseller. We don't deal with HPE directly.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. I don't have the version number on hand.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall. It's been largely quite capable.