HPE OneView Reviews

My company used HPE OneView to create a state cloud for the customer, the government. I was the cloud administrator, responsible for the infrastructure, overlaying middleware, and software.

Mostly, my company used VMware for overall orchestration. Whenever there was an infrastructure issue, VMware was not able to tell my company anything, while HPE OneView was able to give information about computing issues.

Through HPE OneView, my team learned that the issue was quite simple and that the configuration was not proper for one of the servers installed. It was easy to see that I had to send in refresh commands because the configuration was either outdated or missing.

The most significant benefit of HPE OneView to me was when I was on holiday, one of the engineers contacted me because he had no idea what to do, so I told him which steps to take. It was way too simple for that engineer because the HPE OneView user interface was easy to navigate.

The easy user interface was what I found most valuable in HPE OneView. For example, if I wanted to know the infrastructure status or I needed to send in any change commands, HPE OneView had simple buttons.

The solution was simple when compared to Hitachi. The HPE OneView interface was user-friendly and straightforward, so I found it very easy to handle the infrastructure in the data center.

The network configuration part of HPE OneView needs improvement. The solution has way too many features, and there's a need for proper configuration indicators to be put in place. For example, I had to put in some network ranges for the IN nodes so that the IPs could be distributed individually.

When you're facing configuration issues, a mandatory aspect is that the IN node should be configured appropriately, which was missing. HPE OneView should consider specific scenarios, which means there should be alerts and configurations that tell you what's going on. I should not have to do it manually to figure out what's happening. HPE OneView needs indicators.

I also want to see automation in the solution, which tells me if what took place was a common error or if a simple refresh should be done for something to work. HPE OneView needs automation to tell you that whenever a specific scenario happens, this is the task you need to do to take care of that particular issue or case.

I've used HPE OneView within the past eighteen months.

In terms of stability, HPE OneView needs proper communication between customers and HPE. You see, it's a solution that you need time to get used to regarding what's going on and what's required. For example, when my company faced an issue and the team talked to HPE, that was the only time the company learned that an upgrade was needed. HPE didn't send any notification, so out of nowhere, HPE OneView suddenly stopped working or became unstable.

HPE OneView is a scalable solution.

HPE OneView technical support is a six out of ten because resolving an issue takes a lot of time. People who support you keep changing, which means you have to explain again and again and again. One engineer should have handled the issue directly.

Neutral

We used VMware, but it couldn't give us information about infrastructure issues compared to HPE OneView.

Deploying HPE OneView was easy.

It took two weeks to deploy HPE OneView. It was a government project, so the process was a bit slow, but typically, one week is enough to deploy the solution.

We used one HPE engineer, two resellers, and a few government officials to deploy HPE OneView.

As my company implemented HPE OneView for a government project and isn't earning any profit, I cannot comment on the ROI you can get from the solution.

When it comes to the government, money is never an issue, so it was excellent in terms of the HPE OneView licensing cost.

You have to pay for additional expenses apart from the standard licensing fees because everything has a price for HPE.

Hitachi was cheaper, but I'd rate HPE OneView cost-wise as eight out of ten.

My company evaluated Hitachi, but it was like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. The company chose the sea, which was HPE OneView.

The interface of Hitachi was very complicated, while the graphical interface of HPE OneView, including its backup features, was easy. Anybody could understand the HPE technology because it was easy. 

HPE OneView was also easy to deploy, while Hitachi had a complicated deployment process, apart from its challenging interface. Though Hitachi had more features than HPE OneView, my company didn't need all the features, and HPE OneView could meet the company's requirements.

My company was a customer of HPE OneView.

I used the SaaS version of HPE OneView.

For the project, two cloud administrators, two network engineers, and two security engineers worked with HPE OneView on various domains.

Two cloud administrators handled the maintenance, but if it was hardware-related or level two, then an HPE engineer was in charge.

What I'd tell people looking into implementing HPE OneView is that because it's an easy solution, your operational costs can decrease. It's straightforward to train a person on how to handle and maintain HPE OneView. The solution is easy to understand in terms of implementing, learning everything step-by-step, etc. HPE OneView has a training module, so I'd say go for it, but you should not go overboard because HPE has a threshold, which means it can also break down easily.

My rating for HPE OneView is eight out of ten because it's a technology that's easy to understand and implement. I would go with it any day, mainly because engineers under me work with HPE OneView very well, so it helped me and saved me a lot of headaches.

My company is a solution provider. Most of the company uses OneView because it is cloud-based management. Financial institutes and telcos mainly use OneView because it's cloud-based.

The solution is deployed on cloud and on-premises. It's a hybrid solution.

We have plans to increase the usage of HPE OneView in the future.

OneView provides a single console, which is manageable without physical access.

Integration could be improved. Sometimes OneView doesn't identify physical hardware.

I have used this solution for five years.

It's stable.

It isn't scalable, but there is multiple physical server integration.

Technical support is very good. There are teams in Singapore and Bangladesh.

Previously, we used a different solution. It wasn't single console management. Using physical, multiple servers and engineers is very complex from the customer's end.

Setup isn't complex. Initial setup is completed remotely.

If a customer has multiple servers, they will want OneView.

This license cost for OneView was $3,000 USD.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. 

The solution is good for customers with multiple physical servers. Overall, the product is very good. The manageability feature is better than Cisco and Dell.

I use HPE OneView HPE OneView to manage Synergy Switches in my company.

With HPE OneView, you can monitor a number of servers multiple times to see if they are stable.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the visibility it provides when one adds any other servers externally to it.

The speed and performance of the solution are areas where the product lacks and needs improvement.

I have been using HPE OneView for three or four months. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support was great.

The initial setup of HPE OneView was easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I have seen a return on investment from the use of the solution in my company.

I feel the product's price falls a bit on the higher side.

I recommend the solution to those planning to use it, especially those managing over twenty servers.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

In our company, we do quarterly software and hardware assessment with HPE OneView. We use the solution mainly for monitoring purposes, like resources or hardware.

The most valuable feature is the alerts we get from the solution's interface. Whenever we log in, we can easily understand the issue as HPE OneView describes the problem and where it occurred, making it easy to identify issues with the system.

The tool doesn't send automated alerts via email. Improvement-wise, it would be good if we could get automated alerts via email. We should be able to receive notification emails when a server or hardware issue arises, which would be helpful if someone is unavailable in the office. This could ensure that we get notified about issues in totality via emails, and it would be good.

I have been using HPE OneView for five to six years. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using, but we do timely updates in our company. So, it might be the latest version I am using. My company is a customer of the solution.

It is a stable product, and we will use it for a long time. Around ten people in my company use the solution.

I think it is a scalable product.

I have contacted the solution's technical support team. We contacted the support team when the certificate expired for HPE OneView and reached out to them regarding server connectivity issues. The technical support is good.

The solution's initial setup process was easy. The deployment process doesn't take too much time, so it is okay.

I don't know about the pricing since I am not a part of the team that looks into the solution's pricing and financial part.

We decided to use HPE instead of some similar solution because our company has HPE infrastructure. So, that's why we prefer to use HPE OneView.

I would recommend those having an HPE infrastructure to use the solution since, compatibility-wise, it is better than the other monitoring tools. Owing to the solution's monitoring capabilities and the need to consider improvements, I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

OneView is a monitoring as well as a centralized management solution. We are using it for the virtual data center. We are using it for VMware hypervisors on top of the blades and HPE Synergy.

The best part is that you can integrate a two-way network. Earlier we could not manage the storage and ToR switch. Now we can create a LAN with our storage without any interface. 

In terms of switch management, it is now easy to understand the current configuration. It provides centralized management. It provides a single pane, and you can easily do all updates in one shot. It is a great product.

They can improve reporting and provide more customized reports. Currently, reporting is a bit limited. 

It can be complex to learn and manage for beginners. Because of my experience, I find it comfortable to manage, which might not be the case with beginners. It would be good if they can make it a little bit easier to understand. They can provide a more graphical view of connectivity and other things.

Their technical support can also be improved.

I have been using this solution for almost two years. We started working with OneView in 2019.

It is certainly a reliable solution. We switched to this solution almost two years ago, and I have not faced any kind of issues.

We have not tried to expand it. We are a big organization, and in my team, there are almost 200 to 300 people.

Their technical support can be improved. Dell's technical support is better than HPE.

We are also using Dell and Cisco UCS. Dell's technical support is better than HPE. In terms of hardware, stability, and other things, there are no issues.

Its initial setup was not much difficult. I was not much familiar with it at that time, so their technical team guided us. Its documentation is available on the HPE portal.

We took help from HPE.

It was a management decision. They prefer only HPE Synergy. We didn't evaluate any other solution. We are using it in a lot of data centers. We are using something else only in a couple of data centers.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is very stable. There are very few hardware faults with HPE solutions.

I would rate HPE OneView a ten out of ten.

We are a solution provider and HPE OneView is one of the products that we implement for our clients. When we first started using OneView, we used it for monitoring our server. After that, I added my blade server and then two years ago, Synergy.  Since then, I have been managing my HPE BladeSystem and Synergy with OneView.

It is also used for configuring my Virtual Connect, the operating system for my server, and so on.

The OneView Global Dashboard is very user-friendly and it can be used for monitoring the power consumption and temperature of the data center and racks.

It would be better if we can add every HPE device to OneView, such as MSA, as well as the other servers like the DL server and ML server.

I would like to see the price reduced.

HPE OneView is a relatively new product that was introduced between six and seven years ago. I have been familiar with it since the first version, and have been working with it for between five and six years.

Stability-wise, it is okay. It suits us well.

I haven't had any problems with the scalability and configuration. I have set up and configured OneView for several customers that range in size from 50 servers to 500 servers. I would say that it works well for medium-sized organizations.

The initial setup is very easy. You have to create a virtual machine, turn it on, and go to the setup.

I think that the price of OneView is $500 USD per server, which is a little high. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

This is a product that I can recommend to others. The most important thing about OneView is that the primary usage is for configuring BladeSystem and Synergy. If the number of servers that you have is not very high then you do not need OneView because you can manage them using the system manager. You can do intelligent provisioning, for example.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I've been working with OneView off-and-on for about five and a half years, first on the operations side, mostly managing hardware and maintaining it. More recently, I've been spending more time on the engineering side, making sure that we're building stuff, seeing what we can do as far as automating, and getting all of our profiles more generalized so that there are fewer questions about what a particular piece of hardware has.

From the engineering side, we're seeing some nice benefits from just being able to pull everything in and configure it without having to spend time running down to the data center, spend time rebooting anything. We can make our configuration changes and then, a month later, when everything goes through reboots, it just picks it up. So we can plan this stuff out a lot more carefully and more cleanly.

From my early days, the big value was in hardware replacement and repair. We could literally swap out a piece of hardware, slide one back into the chassis, and immediately - about three reboots later - it was identical. We didn't have to worry about configuring it, we didn't have to spend any time getting anything into place. It came back and it healed the environment almost immediately.

The area that I'm currently looking to explore is API-based automation. Thus far, I haven't gotten very far in it, so I can't really say where we are at, looking for that. Other than that, at the moment, we don't have a big need for more features. We need the time to really dig in to it and expand our usage of it.

We had one issue a couple of years ago with a slightly older version, where it became incredibly unstable. It took us several days of working with the techs to get it back into a good state, and it required multiple escalations.

Outside of that, it's been very good overall. The main problem that we run into, as far as stability goes, is when something loses its profile. Sometimes it requires jumping through a number of "hoops" to really get it back.

Broadly speaking, it is scalable.

The main issue we had - I think we were on version 2 at the time, and version 3 had just come out - was actually a scalability problem. We had some stuff that fell out of the environment due to a data center move, and it was taking so long to time-out on the old stuff that it would reboot itself, repeatedly, without ever becoming functional.

Otherwise, we've added hundreds upon hundreds of systems into it, dozens of new profiles, clone profiles, everything. And it has performed to the performance level we expect.

The only time we had to call, it was a very weird issue, so I think it's a little difficult for us to comment on tech support. When we have had minor issues, they've been resolved very quickly, their response has been very good. The bigger stuff has required multiple escalations. We did wind up getting the right people on the phone, it just took a little while.

The setup is very straightforward. We loaded the virtual appliance, pointed at the old one, pulled the database in, and we were already running.

The time that we have saved on hardware configuration and reconfiguration, both on the operations and engineering sides, would definitely pay for the product.

The very simple fact if we have to buy another chassis, or we're configuring a chassis, we can take an existing profile, clone it out, and put it on the new hardware and it just reconfigures all the hardware for us, that saves us time. Instead of manually reconfiguring the chassis, and 16 blades, and getting all the networking done, and then getting all the Fibre Channel done. We just hook it all up and we spend a few minutes doing the networking and then we're done.

At this point, I'd rate it about an eight out of 10. It's doing the job that we need it to, it's doing that job well. Sometimes the interface can be a little confusing, sometimes the error messages can be very cryptic, as far as what's actually going on. But on the whole, the product does what it sets out to do and does it well.

Monitoring of services and networks. The performance has been pretty good.

It provides a single view of all the systems.

• Comprehensive dashboard
• Ease of use

I would like to see them expand into other cloud platforms, non-HPE platforms.

It's pretty stable.

So far, it has been scalable for us.

Technical support is pretty good. Time of response is good.

We are an HPE shop so we didn't look around much.

Setup was straightforward.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are

• support
• scalability
• stability - the uptime has to be close to 99.99 percent.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10 because it's stable, it works.

The ease of installation and use help you to come up with a turnkey solution as quickly as possible. For people who are not fully technical, the comprehensive dashboard is useful.