HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

It has 26 internal disc slots and will take 12 gig SAS discs. We needed to run a SQL server availability groups on a pair of these, and we needed to be able build a high-speed, high-performance disc array to hold our data. The DL380 Gen-9, along with the P830 controller card with the SAS expander, gives us phenomenal performance on 10K SAS discs. They outperformed our existing SAN by a factor of 8 to 10 times.

These replaced old Dell servers and have half the footprint, being as they're a 2U server. They also used half the power. They saved us considerable amounts of money and hosting costs with our data center. Deploying these servers actually saves us money.

I can't see how you can fit much more into a small server, to be quite honest. If I was to be really picky, it needs to not drop the memory speed when you fill all the memory slots, which is a real niggle, but other than that, they've worked so well. They've done so much for us in cutting our hosting costs over the original four way boxes that these replaced. Their performance is absolutely phenomenal.

They've deployed for us without any issues.

Absolutely stunning. We also use the Gen8 on some of our other systems and the key systems that I support -- our ARP CRM and ticket and billing system. Our billing systems handles roughly two-and-a-half billion pounds a year. It's very critical.

They seem to scale brilliantly, but it's difficult to tell. Our company is a constantly growing business. Our expansion is vast -- twenty percent or more last year. The systems are still holding up really well. In fairness, we specked them up and we benchmark these servers, so the particular way we had these servers built was specific to our use, but they do really well.

We did with the original install, the Gen9's that we had. We had some of the first Gen9's that were released. We did have a slight pickup with a BIOS setting, but HP support sorted that one for us.

I inherited the Dell servers from a legacy. I just replaced them with the HP servers. Those are my preferred choice, always. Without being detrimental to Dell, we don't like their servers very much, and the HP ones have always been far better.

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.

There are several valuable features of these servers, including their reliability, the general standardization of components, expandability, price, and support. I think they're miles ahead of the competition in these areas.

I think that the main area of improvement would be in the price. The price only came down for us when we went to a dual vendor solution. We resorted to negotiating prices between HP and its competitors, and would have been nice to not have gone through that trouble to get a more competitive price.

We experienced no issues with the deployments.

The stability is great. They're always bugs with IT and the computers are there to test those. I wouldn't have a job otherwise. I'd say HP servers are generally more stable than the competitors.

They're very scalable.

We do most technical support in-house. If we do go to HP, the level of tech support will depend on the type of bug, who you're speaking to, how good the answer is, and how good the result is. Often you have to skip three layers of support before you can even get any assistance.

We have a multi-vendor network, but 99% of our kit is HP. We also use Dell and IBM equipment, but we chose HP for servers because it's just easier to support the platform. Multiple vendors need multiple hardware, and for multiple hardware, there are more update methods. They don't all work the same way and they're not all as reliable.

These servers provide us with very good performance, and the blade technology allows us to do high-performance computing. It's also a really useful product for us because we need its flexibility in adding new components and blades to our existing infrastructure. That's very important for us.

The Generation 9 servers have the new UEFI firmware version instead of the traditional firmware, but we don't have that on our servers. It would be great if they could run UEFI because they have longer boot times, so there's room for improvement there.

They deploy without any issues.

We've had issues where some components fail, but overall the system runs well.

We've had no issues with scalability.

They're very, very responsive, calling us back within 10 minutes when we open a case. Normally, they'll have the problem fixed the next.

We also have a service contract where the HP guys will take care of things like firmware updates. This helps us a lot in our daily work because we don't have to worry about those particular tasks.

With blade technology, there are the blades and then the whole chassis surrounding the blades. This type of technology is more complex than the normal standalone servers.

If you're looking for high-performance computing, then blade technology is the best you can get. Also, if you're looking for GPU power, then these are the servers for you.

We've used HP servers for a while now, and the most valuable features of them all, the DL series included, are the price and the quality. HP provides the best quality for the price.

We were using Dell before and we switched because HP has a range of products that, from our point of view, is exactly what we need. It supports a special power converter that's essential to us that Dell just doesn't have. We don’t need to do a lot of maintenance on the servers, so we need less people needed to manage them. HP provides us with great service as well, which helps us save on costs and other resources.

Although I compare them often to the Dell servers we used to have, these HP servers could be improved with faster memory. They perform well enough, but I might pay more for faster performance.

We've had no problems deploying these servers.

The stability is very good, 8/10.

Scalability is also very good, 8/10.

Technical service is outstanding, 9/10.

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward.

We evaluated Dell and Lenovo.

For us, the iLO feature is essential because it provides us with server management capabilities and we have a distributed-base installation.

We're able to provide greater support services outside of normal business hours, as well as at sites where we don't have service groups.

The big challenge for us is our deliveries for certain countries, such as Australia and some areas of Asia.

We've deployed these servers without any issues.

I haven't noticed any increase or decrease in the performance and stability of the servers. I'd say it's very stable and we don't generally have any problems.

The range of available services from these servers is quite varies, so it's easy to find the right machine for the job. Whenever we've needed to scale, we're able to find the right model for us.

The technical support is very good, especially for onsite support for hardware problems. They're always reliable.

We previously used Dell, but we switched because of pricing and availability.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We don't have an offsite team that helps, so we managed implementation internally with our own in-house team.

I'd recommend them, but make sure you've planned the right management options, power supplies, and other technical specifications. Make sure, also, that you get the extended warranty.

When compared to other servers and even other HP products, the most valuable feature we saw is that the performance is definitely better and it's easier to manage. I can't say that we've faced any problems after standing up these servers.

It's very important for our business that we have a server that's stable and reliable. These servers have been very, very stable and are performing well for us.

The biggest area of improvement I can think of is with more fiber connections. Adding more fiber connections would make them even better.

We've used it for more than six years.

They deploy very well without any problems.

It's stable, the most important factor for us.

They are supposed to be highly scalable servers, but we're using them in a utilization environment. In a utilization environment, I can't say that they're scalable.

Technical support is fantastic.

We evaluated other vendors and compared them with the same configurations, same amount of memory, same CPUs, and HP servers performed the best.

Perform a comparison between the same level of quality, same level of service, and same level of performance, and choose the product. I think you will find it the most suitable one for you.