The update process could be faster. Specifically, it would be great if we had the ability to reapply the server profile faster.

Sometimes it can be slow, but it works pretty well overall.

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.

In OneView, the only option is to configure the switch over OneView. Dell provides an option to divide app administration and the ability to configure the switch by SFH. When we debug on switch, we need to access the Azure Edge which provides more information. In OneView, we only have the web interface to check the switch. It lacks flexibility. I think that they should also provide more options in the D device drive. We currently do everything by command, not graphic interface.

The technical support for the solution can be improved by adding more knowledgeable people and speeding up their response times. I would like to see updates that are considered critical to users actually labeled as critical updates by HPE.

The solution's console can be improved by making it more user-friendly and adding the capability to filter the reports out using only the information required. I would like to be able to send only one ticket instead of three for the same issue this way I can translate it from Rest API to for example a JSON file with the correct data and send it to our ticket system with one click.

We have had some hardware issues. We've had issues, for example, with RAM. Sometimes, we have issues with hardware levers inside the box. Usually, engineers have more visibility on this, however. 

One of the big things is getting rid of a lot of the legacy devices. As we move to OneView, we want to get away from IRS and SIM and have one thing that will manage all of our accounts.

The solution could add storage, integration services, and end-to-end support for Cisco switches or other competitor products. 

There is no partner product to manage standalone Dell services so manual connections or Aruba are required. 

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.

The inventory report needs improving. I think it's ridiculous that on the inventory report for a DL380, they have the iLO host name.

For blades, which is a majority of my infrastructure, they have, "enclosure name, bay number." That just does not help me understand what that server is. As an IT guy, I already have to take the server name and match it up with the application that's running on it and the business owner and I have a way to do that.

Some Excel tricks make that pretty easy. When I can't even start with a server name or an iLO name, that makes it really hard to start with, so that's my first request. I've been asking for that for some time.

The V3.1 feature that adds the OS name isn't a good replacement for that, because it requires Agentless Management Service running in the host OS to get the OS name into OneView and they're getting that OS name out of iLO anyway, so why not get the iLO host name instead of, "enclosure name, bay number?"

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

I would like to see support for things that aren't in the current generation. We have a lot of 7th and 8th generation hardware.

In the 9th generation, we are looking at virtual connect. Virtual connect profiles, things like that. So, we have a bunch of old hardware that's not in virtual connect, there's no virtual connect profiles, and you can't really do anything with that stuff. You can see it but that's about it. It would be nice if they supported some of the older generation hardware.

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.

If I remember correctly, our CTO was saying that he wants to see a little bit more of integration into the HPE StoreVirtual VSA product. I know that it's either supposed to be or was recently added, but it's coming soon or is already there. I'm just not one hundred percent sure where it's as of now and that is one piece.

We now have a new HPE 3PAR added as well. I'm pretty sure that we can do what we need to do with that, but there might have been something my CTO was saying that he wanted to see integrated. I don't know what that is from the top of my head but, I'm pretty sure it's on the roadmap to actually get that implemented soon anyway.

I would like to see them improve the firmware and BIOS settings. I would like to make those a little easier to use and make it fit across more of our environments. Besides that, I don't really think it's missing anything.

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

I can't think of anything off the top of my head for the next release. I think some of the stuff that's coming with Synergy is already going to be included there, like a lot of the OS integrations.

You can do some of that with Image Streamer and a Synergy chassis. A lot of those things go through OneView, which acts as its own Synergy composer, that takes you to the Image Streamer appliance. Those are their own OneView instances, so to speak.

The coming features I heard about at a recent conference are probably what I would have suggested anyway.

From our perspective, we don’t know of any needed improvements. Everything that was advertised to us has been available, was available and does work.

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.

It's a nice product. It's a little slow sometimes. Overall, I think it does what it's supposed to do. I think that as they evolve it, it'll get quicker.

We're still pretty junior into it, so right now our focus with regards to hardware is kind of being displaced now with the cloud. For future releases, it's probably not going to fall into our lap anymore. I probably can't really speak to what we would like to see in future releases, at least not at this point. As much as we've used OneView right now, it's probably not something that we're going to move forward with as a bigger footprint. We're trying to displace ourselves from the hardware platform.

I saw, maybe three years ago or two years ago here, or in Barcelona, at the HPE Discover conference, a feature that you can update Clusterware with VMware. But the feature is still not live in production. So it would be nice if you could roll out all your firmware updates seamlessly with vCenter updates and it would remediate at the cluster level of VMware. So it would keep track of how many hosts can reboot at one time. Maybe parallel updates. So you can do all at once.

Currently, you have to do all the firmware updates and then you have to do the VMware updates. So you have two reboots and it would be better if it was just one.

In general, I think the development of new features should go faster.

Seeing how I know there isn't gonna be a next release, the gooey is kind of unstable a little bit. That's probably my biggest freight I really can't think of anything cause it's pretty straight forward.
Just a little bit more of ease of use in the setup. Now that I've done it twice, it's much easier but we had a consultant who was helping us. He was like, “Zoom we're going through this' Iand was like 'Wait a minute what happened here?” So, it was very, very quick.

There are some portions of OneView that don't work with 3PAR, well actually it's parts of 3PAR that don't work with OneView. They're working on them now, so I already know it's in the road map. I can't say it's something that needs to be improved when they're already working on them.

I had some minor difficulties with upgrading, but the solution still works fine. That is basically it. I can see what I want. I am still looking for more improvements. I am not that into the deployment part. I am more into viewing on a global scale what goes well, and what goes bad. I do not apply using the tool, yet. I am not sure I am going to use it, because I have had a bad experience with some other products, so I am not sure I am going that way. However, with the monitoring and the management part, it is very good.

With upgrades, it simply stopped. It was the database. It was not digitized correctly, so they fixed it pretty fast. In this particular case, technical support was very responsive.

When I did the upgrade with help from HPE, and it went through, I saw that I was able to switch on remote support. So, I connected to see what our contract was like. Was it 24/7 or 9/5? So, I accidentally turned it on, and maybe I should not have, but it started enabling remote support on all our services. This is definitely something I would like to more heavily rely on, because we need to see if we forgot a server. We have about 200, and we could easily have forget one.

We cannot travel around to all our offices, so some got lost, it happens. Maybe we forgot to buy an extended contract or something. We have an external firm, as well, to help us with that. So, I would like to see that. I saw it was turned on, but I could not change things. I would like to extend that contract to a 24/7, and not 9/5, so you could click that button that said, "Are you sure?" Yes, I am sure. Okay, I am going to puff it up for you, and I am going to send you an extra bill. That is fine by me. I would like that.

• More on the software development side
• Forms of HPE's REST API
• Different web services available for the product, especially connecting OneView back to HPE Passport and HPE Ticketing Solutions.

There is a lot of automated stuff in there, but we'd like to step into the middle of that and bring in our own different tools as a part of that integration. That would be nice.

We would really love to see greater integration, something I've raised with the HPE software engineers. They have been very forthcoming and very honest about what they'd like to do with the product.

Off the top of my head, I don't have any comment.

HPE OneView should be able to cover more device models apart from ProLiant and Synergy. It would be good if we could incorporate HPE OneView into GreenLake. Instead of having everything go to HPE GreenLake Central, we could have access to manage GreenLake through HPE OneView.

The solution's bootup takes a very long time, and it should be reduced.

Our company was actually part of a - I don't even know what they call it - but you sit down with HP, they talk to you about features that you would like to see with their next release, and then actually a few months later they brought us into the HP campus and they actually showed us some of the things they were doing with the next release of the OneView.

Some of the things that we said at that time was better ability to do firmware. So, we obviously follow a chain-management process. Within that chain-management process we have to be able to show, "Hey, here's the list of servers that need this firmware," and then also give a report afterwards saying, "Hey, here are those lists of servers and here's their firmware now, but they're up-to-date."

So those were some of the things that we were asking, it was just some improvements on reporting and then improvements on how we do the patch process, in general, for firmware and drivers and things like that. So, that's really what we were looking for, and those were things that they were showing us that there's going to be possibly capabilities in the future release.

Well I was at the booth and I guess they're going to announce it here in a few minutes, the version 3.1 and all the stuff that they've added in 3.1. It just keeps getting better, more support for more hardware, more functionality.

Well, the newer hardware, that's the biggest thing. You've got some of the newer StoreVirtual devices and more functionality in the storage networking and iSCSI stuff, and support for some of those arrays.

I would like to see some GUI based features around decommissioning hardware. The management tools in the existing HPE infrastructure were good, but they were aging. That's really where OneView kind of made their mark from the ground up with an all new solution. They actually started from the ground up to just understand that our existing management tools were aging and we needed to improve that. That was a big thing to us.

Honestly, I was just working with one of the Beta versions in one of the hands-on labs and I think from a management functionality, it's very complete with regards to the hardware and what the different offerings have as far as management is concerned.

Maybe it could be a little faster. Also, streamlining the code a little bit, making it a little bit more responsive. I noticed as we were doing this in a virtualized environment here in the labs, that it seems to occasionally have choke points that slow it down a little bit and then it speeds back up.

For future releases of OneView, I would say, let me control my cloud. Let me do stuff from the command line myself. I would love to be able to do simple things from my end with a bit of space to adjust my preferences for myself. Perhaps open the command line for Windows and let me work with it.

There is need to make it a bit easier to federate across all of our OneVew implementations that we have, so just make it easier.

The lack of dashboard and reporting functionalities is not clear. They should carry more solutions to try and get the reporting that I need out of all of my different storage devices, i.e., VBAs and Blue Cars; they've got to do a better job and unify it for us. Currently, it's not there and it is very difficult to report.

At a recent conference, I spoke to the guys in the CDA booth about what's coming and there's quite a few features in there already that I was looking for. I've asked for some better facilities around the management of alerts. The system currently has 75,000 alerts that are either being acknowledged or some are active, and there's not a simple way of selecting a whole filtered list and then closing them off and deleting them. So one of my bits of feedback already to the development guys is around alert management.

Also, I've spoken to them about some more role-based access control for the new Oneview global dashboard tool that was recently launched. We could do it in OneView itself, that's capable of doing role-based control to some extent, but it’s quite minimum in the dashboard tool. It only provides basic functions like administrate, modify, and read only. We'd like to see that broadened and then I'd like to see that pushed up into the OneView dashboard, but I believe in recent versions of Oneview this is also being improved with resource scopes .

OS deployment, but it is in version 4 with Synergy.

They need to add some other storage systems like MSA or P2000. That would be a great feature. At this time, they are only planning to add 3PAR. All of the others are third-party. 

I have not given it a perfect rating because some features are missing like adding other storage systems and providing email notifications.

Additional APIs.

I would like to see a better backup feature so I can manage data protection better.

I'd like to see more integration across Hypervisor and 3PAR storage and other storage products.

It tends to detect flood conditions on a lot of the networks. I'll have blades that are suddenly offline because it detected a flood condition on that particular NIC. I've called support on that and they're like, "Yeah, we have detected a flood condition, it is a loop." However, I tell them, "We don't have a loop." So, you reset it and reboot the blade; the ESX comes back up and away you go. That has happened to me three or four times now. So, hopefully, we can figure out what's causing this at some point in time.

We have different operations teams managing the servers. It should be segregated more in terms of which operation team is managing which group of servers.

Those features coming in version 4 that we're looking for are the discovery, primarily. But I think the scope-based access control is of interest, although, we didn't see any directory integration, so that, in itself, seems like it's still limited. 

There should be an easier management of the driver and firmware baseline.

I would like to see, probably a little bit tighter Type B integration.

I would like to choose what I want monitored from the server. I want to disable features like performance monitoring, utilization, and power control. They could add more customization of the SPPs in the system, so I can upload the SPP but then select what I want or don't want in the SPP after I've uploaded it into the system.

Another area of improvement could be in the report functionality by providing more customization so that I can create customized reports since I like to use the ones besides what HPE wants me to show.

There are some important features for security in the next version. That is one of the better improvements. 

I cannot say. Maybe there will be, but my experience is not deep enough at this moment.

The interface is a bit bland. It does its job, but it could have a better interface.

I would like to see a change in the GUI, so that you can navigate easier. You can dive down into each individual product without having to do a global search.

I’d like to see more functionality going towards the hybrid IT. It is cloud economics in which we will see more and more of the private cloud and their own data centers as well.

The connection with Azure Stack, which was recently announced, demonstrates the connection between the local data center and Microsoft Azure. I see more and more features that will come together.

It needs to support more types of equipment. Some types of equipment we have are not supported with OneView, so we cannot monitor those on OneView. For example, the HPE 6125 Switch Series are not supported and we would like to see that resolved soon.

There is a need for more integration. For example, I haven't really looked into integration with the Microsoft System Center, or things along those lines, so that we could move to even a more single-pane-of-glass.

I'd like to know where the product is going, whether it's converging with another, whether they're going to shut it down, etc. It would just be nice to know because there have been about three different versions of it and it's a bit unnerving not knowing the product's future.

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.

I think HPE could make more user-friendly interfaces, exclude Java and move to an HTML5 platform, make more detailed documentation, and lower the price.

One thing which is missing is that you can't actually log a support call yourself. So, it's automatic, if a machine has gone wrong. However, sometimes it does not actually log a call for you, so it would be nice to actually be able to click "submit a case" within OneView instead of having to go out, login to Insight Remote Support's website and do it from there. That would be a good feature.

It needs more reporting capabilities.

I like where they're going with a lot of the integration in the iLO. I like the new security features in the iLO and I also like the ability to set your workload, like setting up for VMs, or setting up for a database. I think a lot of what I like is being able to program great automation. All that increases with technology. I know that whatever it is now, next year it is going to be faster and better.

I would love the ability to either import a range of IPs for the ILO, or be able to do a scan. If they could improve the IP range, that would be great.

I would advise them to improve their support by treating it like software. Now they are treating it as hardware.

The support team needs to change their mindset. There is a need to take the time with your customer. Perhaps carry out a room session and let that explain what the problem is. HPE needs to invest more as the level of support in India needs to be higher in terms of OneView knowledge. The HPE support team is smart but the issue is that they don't have enough knowledge of that product.

Managing the system is the next step for us. Currently, we have realized the integration and use the monitoring feature of this product. The next step for us is to explore and propose the managing of the systems. Thus, we need to be more experienced in this part of the software.

Probably one of the missing features is a help tool of the system from our point of view, that can be given to the customer and to us. For example, it can help with the release of a firmware upgrade or a comparison with the system that has the versions of the firmware installed on the system and is available on the HPE side. Also, it should provide a comparison of my firmware version's situation in relation to the new upgrade that is available.

I can't think of any improvements off hand honestly. I know we tend to have issues with our server profiles. That's something that we've not really dug deep into, but that seems to be a problem. When we're changing server profiles and applying them we run into some red flags occasionally.

Although the product is meant only for HPE, it would be great if they were to incorporate functionality from non-HPE components.

I can't think of any additional features now to be honest with you. Maybe granular permissions. Because, right now, I have off-shore support in India.

I want to give them the ability to be able to login to OneView and only do certain things. I want to give them the ability to get access to the console of the physical server right through to iLO.

In OneView, the permissions need to be done better because right now I can only select a server administrator, a storage administrator, and a network administrator as far as my options are concerned. When I pick a server administrator, the user in India has iLO access but he also has the ability to do damage to the servers.

He's able to get in and delete things and mess up things. I don't want that ability. If I make him a read-only user, then he doesn't have the access to do anything except just read what's in OneView. He can't access the iLO.

I would like the ability to not only do server administration but beneath that, say, I get them console access or iLO access, as those features are available in the iLO themselves already today but not in OneView.

The possibility to do more analytics regarding the status of the assets.

To improve our political mission process and workflow.

We are just now starting to bring it up, it has taken us around eight weeks and we haven't still been successful to bring it up. We have hardware or blades that can't see themselves within the enclosure of OneView managing them.

Hopefully, it's just going to be more stable and we can get functional, i.e., get up and running quicker than what we've seen.

I know they're building more product availability within the HPE OneView, so a wider range of products are to be viewable, i.e., you will be able to see within OneView.

There are three things that I would like to see be improved. The first is related to OneView: It should support HPE MSA storage since it is not available right now. The second one is in regards to integration with the applications, which is not available currently. The third one is integration with some security devices, which is not available in the current version.

I would like it to be a little more optimized for some performance enhancements.

There is no way currently to manage the onboard storage from the servers through the OneView application. You've got to go to the actual server and do it there. That was a little bit disappointing, I guess.

Sometimes it gets slow, so it doesn’t always perform well. I think it's a work in progress.

There is room for improvement, especially with the speed of things. If we push a profile out, it takes several minutes; if we could improve the speed of pushing out a profile.

I think we want to get a 3PAR integrated with OneView and see what we can do with that. That's our next target.

It's new for us, so I need to get the hands-on experience first, before I comment on this.

I would like OneView to support VMware. Our infrastructure is 78% VMware.

There was a feature called HPE cloud manager, but now it is owned by Micro Focus. HPE should make a cloud optimizer again.

Active director integration.

With every new version, new devices are supported in OneView, but we are still missing support for some HPE products. I hope they will be supported soon.

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

For a code upgrade, there should be more stability in the code.