HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We still use this solution, but we're actually using an older version. Within our organization, there are roughly 10 users, using this solution.

Although we are happy with HPE ProLiant DL Servers, we are looking to replace them shortly.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers are a great product. We don't have many complaints.

I honestly can't think of any areas for improvement.

We've been using this solution for roughly 10 years.

The technical support is great. I have no complaints about them.

I used to use another solution, but that was over 10 years ago, so it's not relevant.

The initial setup is very straightforward. We installed it within half an hour.

We had some help with the implementation.

The price is a little too high; it could be reduced.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

We use this solution for everything. We use it for payment solutions and for the switch.

It is currently deployed on-premises, but we are moving to a private cloud because our requirements have really grown over the years.

Its reliability and after-sales support are very good.

It is too expensive. Its price should be improved.

The system admin interface should have better visibility while troubleshooting a problem, even when the problem is coming from the application.

I have been working with this solution for 20 years.

It is very stable. That's why we have so many of them.

It is very scalable. We are able to add memory and storage. My company supports all the banks in Nigeria, and they use this solution. 

We have very good local support in Nigeria. They're very good. We don't have any problems.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is just too expensive.

I would advise others to get the technical training for this solution. They would then enjoy this solution very well.

I would rate HPE ProLiant DL Servers a nine out of ten.

There are two sets of servers that we use. We have several sites where we have VMware clusters using the servers, and also we have standalone servers that we use for physical security applications.

They are both performing very well.

We are on a journey with that. iLO, in particular, helps us manage the servers better, especially as a lot of them are remote from where the IT staff are. We have some locations where we just have not got IT presence at those locations, so iLO really helps with that. We are starting to use HPE OneView to manage them further, so that is where we are going with it. Hopefully, to go and be able to manage them.

1. Obviously, they perform what we want them to do.
2. The added extras, I particularly like iLO.
3. Just to be able to manage them and get information about the servers. That is really good.

At the moment, I feel that there is more there that we could be using rather than things that are missing.

The servers are very stable. They have been in place for about six to seven years. We are refreshing stuff. We are about to refresh a lot of the vSphere servers because they have come to their end of life. They are about five years old, so we are gonna put in some hyper-converged servers instead. 

In theory, they are expandable. So yeah, they fit our needs and I am sure if things changed, when we needed more capacity, we could get it. I am confident of that. 

Technical support is very good. I can't complain. We have had very few incidents, but when we have needed to, we can get through to them and get the right support.

I was not involved in the initial setup. Though, we are going through a new setup and I will be involved in that.

With the DL380, you can't go wrong. There is no risk to go and take them.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Trusting that you will always have the right level of service. Support is key for that, and obviously knowing that the servers are used by thousands and thousands of other people. That they will be tried and tested. It is reassuring.

It's easy to set up for the whole firm. Nobody has trouble with it.

• Easy to configure
• Reliable

It's perfect. It could go faster all the time, but the next generation is always faster.

Consistently stable. It is 99.9999.

We only use it on single machines, and for VMware we use another product from Cisco.

I am not responsible for the tech cases, so I can't comment.

It's straightforward. We use Red Hat, it's straightforward. We go from five to six or seven. It's no problem.

When our company looks to work with vendors, we look for

• first the price
• then the support 
• then the ease of use.

The blades are very compact. They are easy to query. If you need information from them, you have one central location where you can go with OneView to understand where everything is located if you have any problems with them. In that respect, it is better than just standalone servers that you find in the field.

It gives us the ability to manage centrally. If you have a problem with any of the servers, it will send alerts and you can easily find out where they are located. You can then pull the server if you have to and change the hardware.

The servers are all identical, so if we do have issues, we can just pull one from our reserved stash and just replace it. The benefit is that they are all identical, so they are pretty reliable.

What is missing for me is more of the administration site. If you have a cluster of four servers, there's no way to identify if they are all a member of the same cluster.

If there were a way to tag them, then you could specify where they are located within the data center. It would make it easier, because then we could spread them out. We would not have to keep them in the same cabinet in case of a power failure.

I would like to see more ease-of-use, be able to identify everything, and group them together so that we know where they are located.

So far it has been very stable and reliable. We rarely have issues. When we do have issues, it is usually firmware related. Hardware-wise, they are pretty solid.

With blades, you can just add more cabinets and you are good to go.

Occasionally, we have to use technical support when there are issues. The support is really good. They always find a solution. Sometimes it takes a little longer than other times, but they always find a solution.

We knew we needed a solution because we didn't have anything prior to this solution. I had to come up with a solution and say, "These four servers are in the same cluster. We need to write codes that indicate that these servers are in this frame or in this enclosure." That way, we could map out our status.

When selecting a vendor, I look at price, if they are technologically inclined, i.e., that they know what they're doing. We look for a personal relationship, just to make sure that they are friendly and that they know their stuff.

I was not present for the initial setup. I was present for the setup of the Synergy frames. It was straightforward, but we also had HPE's help setting them up and they gave us guidance.

They evaluated solutions before I came on board. I believe they looked at Dell. We have a few Dell machines in our environment.

It is a good investment and they should go for it.

They've been stable and we have got good performance out of them.

We have standardized our network on this equipment, so it makes it easy for maintenance, repairs and just standardizing our images.

It works well for us, but they should bring the price down.

We haven't had any problems with the newer equipment. As this stuff ages, things happen.

We cluster them so they scale beautifully with the way we do it.

I'm not impressed as you always go to the first-level support first, and it just takes forever to get to somebody that really can help you. We've already read the manual before we called support, but they read the manual to you again. They are responsive when you actually do get through to someone.

We've used IBM. We got away from IBM just because of the sheer cost for maintenance.

It's very straightforward.

We're strictly HPE at the moment so we haven't looked at anyone else.

I'd encourage them to use it. For the price and the functionality you get out of it, they work out great.

The most valuable features of these servers are their stability and efficiency. We can download all the firmware, drivers, agents, utilities, and any other software as a single download.

We've been with these servers for a long time. We know the book on them and we know the partners who work with us. We have confidence in them, which means we don't need to spend money and waste time on maintenance and other issues unnecessarily.

It could use less power. We want to go green and so want to use as little energy as possible.

We got this a long time ago.

They deploy without any issues.

They're very stable.

We as an organization haven't been growing, so scalability is not relevant for us.

We get technical support through our own partner, not through HP.

My colleagues who set it up said the initial setup was OK. It wasn't simple but it also wasn't complex.

We're not going to see an ROI in 2016, but hopefully in 2017.

I would recommend you use them, especially if you have other HP products.

It's highly competitive in terms of cost and performance. There were other players, but one after another, they disappeared. If you ask your customers what's most important to them, it's always cost efficiency. They always complain about paying way too much. With HP, they're getting the best product for the money.

The most improvements that could be made would not be in the hardware commodity itself, but in the firmware. There's synergy between hardware and software, so you can't view hardware in an isolated way. So the improvements I'd suggest would be in the software that runs the servers.

I've been using it for 15 years or so.

We've had stability issues, but they weren't anything that other vendors don't have. In particular, we had problems with the DL585 generation 7. It has what we call a "Monday product", which is not hard to fix, but we've had much more trouble than others. These problems seem to be recurring for us.

For our scenarios, it's scalable.

We don't get direct technical support from HP, but rather from our partners.

Overall, we have a good partnership with HP and we are heavily invested in them.