HPE ConvergedSystem Reviews

We primarily use the solution for recovery and backup purposes.

Even we could not restore some of our systems by using some conventional methods. Instead of using the SimpliVity backup and restore methods, we can easily restore our data without any risk. That is the advantage of these systems.

The flexibility is the most advantageous aspect of the solution. Our system has a very big environment. Due to this, the replication and backup operation is not an easy task. We prefer HPE SimpliVity modules in our environment, even when we have some different cases in operations.

So far we have been very comfortable with these kinds of devices.

In terms of our HPE ConvergedSystem, currently we use Gen8 Blade Systems and HPE c7,000 chassis in our environment. We have a three-part 7400 module in our environment. We also have StoreOnce 6000 models here for backing up our operating systems. Currently, we have problems with the HPE StoreOnce module in regards to the backup operations. This is because sometimes we can lose our backup reports storage from the Veeam side. We checked this issue on the HPE side and it was suggested to us to use the catalyst model instead of a 6-sharing model. They say that this approach can solve our issues easily, but we are still testing to see if this is the case.

Full flash systems require high utilization of the application. Due to this, HPE changed their systems into full flash modules. Currently, we use inbuilt modules in our environment. These kinds of modules require fast disks and SSD disks, but SSD disks are generally used for the caching of operations. The majority of our data is located on the fast disk. Due to this, sometimes we experience some ancillary issues. 

The solution needs to add NFS features.

I've been using the solution for eight years.

Currently, we do not have enough experience regarding the full flash system's efficacy. We have new projects and we still have the old SimpliVity nodes. We have some POCs in the works in our environment.

In terms of scalability, these types of devices are very successful in expanding. This is due to the fact that you can expand simply by adding nodes and changing the size of the storage. It's easy.

HPE is very good in terms of providing assistance as required. We do not have any issues with the support side of this device. We're quite satisfied with their level of service.

We tested EMC with three ACI systems in our environment. As far as I remember, we put our exchange systems on the environment. However, they failed. We tested Nutanix's Systems in our environment as well. Both of these were tested in our environment quite a long time ago.

HPE pricing is generally high for these devices. Using HPE Servers in the SimpliVity module, it should in theory be possible to decrease pricing to a reasonable amount. However, at the moment, the pricing remains high.

Most of our landscape is HPE products at the moment. We also have an EMC Backup Appliance in our environment. Currently, we have HPE Blade in our environment. We are thinking of changing all of these products. At the end of this year, we'll probably target HPE Synergy Systems hardware in our environment. Some of the projects require unified storage on our environment due to this. We prefer a storage model, like EMC.

Currently, we also use the HPE Converged Systems. We have SimpliVity nodes in our environment. We use these nodes for most systems, but we are currently having some difficulties in terms of IO utilization issues. We will probably change the systems to SL systems.

In our current situation, HPE still suggests to use the new HPE SimpliVity System in our environment, however, there are some difficulties with the implementation of this project. The project requires NFS sharing on the ACI side. 

In terms of advice to others considering the solution, with the implementation of the systems, the networking connections and VLAN settings can be done by VSAT. It would make the implementation of this kind of device simpler. New users may need to add some sort of storage access like NFS. I don't know whether putting in another controller into these devices would help. The virtualization platform can be run on a different controller.

I would caution that a user needs to calculate their IOPS and utilization size very well. If the application requires intensive party access and if they are not in the scope of the application of the SimpliVity devices, the entire application requires the IO of the hard disk located on the SimpliVity.

It's important to run a POC before implementing any application on this kind of ACI system. ACI systems cannot be addressed by every general application. You have to know your application and know your application requirements, and test your application requirements on each appliance. Then, you can proceed to the production environment on the ACI side. Sometimes your application may not be suitable for the ACI systems.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

In Chile, most of our customers use VMware to virtualize several machines and make their hardware more efficient.

This is an expensive solution and could be improved with lower pricing. 

We have used this solution for 12 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. Our customers begin with an initial configuration and later add more servers, memory and other options to meet the demands of increased processing.

The customer service for this solution is good. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. We received the necessary training and the manuals are very clear and easy to follow. 

I would advise those considering this solution to ensure they begin with the correct sizing and configuration. If the configuration is oversized, they will pay a high price for features they do not use. If the configuration is undersized, they may not have all their needs met. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We find the deduplication and compression features to be most valuable, as well as that of the backup solution inside.

Features that should be addressed concern the HPE functionality and the interaction with VMware. We would also like to see additional website functionality, because the surfeit of those who come online makes the addition of complete information challenging.

We have been using HPE ConvergedSystem for several months. 

The technical support is French approved  and transpires in this language, which works for us. So, too, we share the same work hours with those of technical support and they are adaptable to our schedule.

All of the activity concerning the initial setup was complex, as we are obliged to coordinate it with HP support.

I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution as a container-as-a-service. We use it to host containers. It effectively supports a cloud-based container system.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to restore lost machines. Essentially its high availability capabilities are extremely valuable to us.

The solution needs to be easier to use. The administration's ease of use it poor and it needs a better administrative console.

The solution has a complicated front-end.

In terms of features, the solution is very complete. It doesn't seem to be missing features that I can see that would need to be added in future releases.

I've been using the solution for three years.

The solution is incredibly stable. It's one of the great advantages of the product. We've never faced any problems when it comes to stability.

The solution is highly scalable in a modular fashion. We've never had any issues with scaling.

The tech support is really good, both online and with engineers. We've been satisfied with the level of service we've received.

I'm a consultant and have experience working with the solution both as a consultant and as an end-user.

We currently have thousands of people using the solution. In our IT department, we have about ten to 15 people working on the solution as admins.

I'd advise others to choose their use cases carefully. It's suitable for certain environments but not all environments.

Others would also be sure to read the small print and really understand the solution before implementation as well. For example, beware of any additional licenses you may need.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If it had a better administrative console, I'd give it full marks.

Our HP infrastructure is used as the host system to run our VMware ESXi.

The biggest improvement that we have seen is with respect to our backups.

The best feature of this solution is the backup system. I have found it to be particularly good because we've been able to restore on a file by file basis.

The user interface, reporting, and management are good, and we are quite happy with the performance.

This solution integrates well with other products and applications.

The interface is not fully integrated with the ESXi, which is something that could be improved.

We have been using the HPE ConvergedSystem for about two years.

This solution is very stable.

We believe that this is a scalable solution, although we haven't had to extend it yet. One of the reasons that we would have chosen it, however, is so that we could scale when necessary.

The technical support from HPE is excellent.

The initial setup was complex, but that's the nature of this type of solution.

We had help from a vendor with our implementation.

We did evaluate other options before choosing HPE ConvergedSystem. However, I was not involved in the decision so I do not know what the deciding factors were.

This is a good solution and it seems to have everything that we need.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a consulting firm, and this is one of the solutions that we implement for our customers.

The majority of deployments are on-premises. If it is a cloud deployment, then it is a hybrid model.

Improvements to the organization depend on the customer, but usually, it assists them with consolidation. For example, they're replacing server racks with the converged system because they have too little space to have a rack full of servers.

One of the valuable components in this solution is HPE Synergy, which is a useful tool for deployments and updates.

This solution is very simple to use.

I would like to see better manageability and integration with third-party tools.

I would like to see persistent memory deployed in this solution, as I have not yet seen it in any converged system.

I have never had any problems with the technical support for this solution.

There are several levels of support available. These include simple Foundation care, which basically is a best effort. There is Proactive care, and even Datacenter care, which means you get an appointed account manager and much more rapid response. However, these options are expensive.

The complexity of the initial setup is dependant on the customer. I find that it is quite easy if you have all of the details, such as the IP addresses, raid volumes, and shared disks. The configuration is straightforward, although sometimes you have a complex scenario and you really have to tweak.

This is an expensive system and not every customer has the kind of budget to support it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We implemented a complete system and then 3PAR storage solutions. We are very happy with the implementation.

We had an old system, but it got to a point, because of age, and the data limitations, that backup times and operations were taking too long. After we migrated to this environment, everything changed. Our applications are performing at their best and the backup times have been reduced from about four hours to 30 minutes.

We would like the system to be even faster.

Everything is intact, everything is perfect.

We got it about three years ago. We have a policy that we don't scale. We use a system for about five years and then we change the whole system.

Our company policy is that every five years we have to upgrade our equipment.

Everything in our environment is HPE. Recently, some other vendors have been knocking on our door. We have done our research and what we found is that nothing out there is comparable to HPE. Since it's working for us, we don't see a reason to switch from HPE.

The initial setup was complex because it was the first setup for that implementation engineer. He really struggled. We got to some points where there was no way forward. We searched online and found solutions and moved on.

In our previous environment, we were using fiber switches where you just plug in.

I'm very satisfied with HPE systems. We don't have any issues with their hardware or their backup software.

We don't do everything converged. We actually do converged infrastructure for particular servers. Everything that is software-defined, we do through our converged infrastructure. The core is converged but we don't do anything else besides that. We only do it to provision our servers. Our Infrastructure is actually converged at the server level, it's not converged at the network devices level and the like. We still go through hybrid and conventional for that.

It begins with a simpler installation. It provides a more advanced way to approach enterprise IT. It's still a nightmare, like every other converged solution out there. But we have done data center consolidation and data protection, disaster recovery for our services for DR. Desktops are globally backed up.

For the converged system, HANA for SAP. OneView is very good too. 

We don't have any problems with it at the technology level. I can't think of any improvements they can make. I think they are doing pretty much what any other converged infrastructure services system can do. Perhaps faster allocation of memory or storage.

However, I am sure we are not the only healthcare company that works with them. They need to work more as a team to solve common business problems.

If you're asking me about the technology, I don't see anything that they can do, other than growing the hyper-converged. But I think things have grown as far as they can. However, in terms of their direction as an enterprise, I don't think they are very good. It was a very rough ride. The people they sent, I don't think they had experience in doing these kinds of implementations before. It was pretty painful. It's working now but it took too long.

As far as what we are doing now, there is no problem with stability. It's pretty flexible, it's efficient, and it is centralized management, cost-effective. I don't see a problem. The systems are good to go. It's just the people that they hired to do the implementation, I don't think they knew what they were doing. They were just learning with the clients.

No issues with scalability. We are good to go on that.

Tech support is good, no problem. You write a ticket and, for policy changes and stuff like that, they're pretty straightforward. Sometimes they say it will take eight hours and they do it in 15 minutes. There are many ways to do escalation of their tickets. From my point of view, I do not have a problem with them, they are pretty efficient.

Setup was very complex, in terms of communication with them. At a certain point, we had to fly them there.

Pricing is good. We have not calculated what hyper-converged infrastructure has brought us but I think there has to be some lower cost for us, compared to the public cloud. Obviously, there would be a lower cost, probably by more than half.

Regarding licensing, have the paperwork looked at by senior management and don't make any decisions until you have all of your corners covered. In the beginning, you might see that this thing has ears and a tail but you don't know if it's a mouse or an elephant. You need to try to have as much clarity on what the business needs are going to be because, later on, it's going to hurt to increase licensing or to understand how far they go, what their limitations are.

Ask as many questions as you can, don't take things for granted. In the beginning, you need to give them a roadmap. If you don't give them a roadmap, if you don't ask for the right things, that's not on their side.

When we were in the market, we went everywhere. When you're in the market looking for a solution, you don't want to go for the first pick. It was a year-long project to find a provider. We based our decision on cost-effectiveness and on what they told us: that it was going to be easier to manage the essential application, that we were going to have increased performance, we were going to have a reduction in recovery time. Promises and promises.

It's not that they are not true, it's just that they didn't seem to be true at the beginning of the implementation of the cloud. You get all of these problems at the beginning and you ask yourself, "Are we going to be getting this kind of scenario everywhere we go in this implementation?" In the end, everything worked out. I guess it's just part of this business. The transformation is not as simple as see it seems.

I don't think we are completely happy but we are not completely unhappy. We are right in the middle. It's not the system, it's the people behind the system. They have a pretty good technology, but they don't have people who know how to handle it. That's the problem. I am not saying I'm an expert on hyper-converged or on converged systems, but I have to say that for some issues, we had to roll up our sleeves and do it ourselves.

In terms of advice, if you are considering converged infrastructure, you should become educated first on what it is. To begin with, it is one that isn't going away. But it needs to make sense for your use case. Converged infrastructure can be perfect for virtualized data centers, but only after considering the logistics and financial implications.

You need to learn about the benefits. You need to know how the bundle will compute. You need to know how the storage is going to work into a single offering that can be deployed quickly.

Another point is budget. You are going to have an initial cost for converged infrastructure. You can prevent a lot of frustration when you are working with heterogeneous data centers. You need to know how to save money in the long term.

Don't be too fast in making decisions, don't pull the trigger without a converged infrastructure comparison; the benchmarking is very important. A lot goes into the decision to use converged Infrastructure. Some factors can be very subjective, others can be very straightforward.

Personally, I would say that, ready or not, converged Infrastructure systems are here, and they are here to stay. If you're still buying separate servers or you're still buying separate networks and storage, you might consider a converged infrastructure system. There is no other way.