HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We use ProLiant servers for Enterprise Asset Management services.

HPE service in Taiwan is quick and professional, and ProLiant is cost-effective compared to Dell. Dell is good for one or two servers, but HPE is cheaper than Dell for a large deployment. Cost is the most important thing in the market.

ProLiant servers could be more scalable. For example, some models can only contain four hard drives, but many of our customers expect six. If they were to add another extendable hard drive slot, it would be easier to sell the servers to our customers. 

I have used ProLiant servers for two years.

I rate HPE ProLiant servers nine out of 10 for stability.

I rate HPE ProLiant eight out of 10 for scalability.

I rate HPE support nine out of 10. I'm happy with them. They are knowledgeable and professional.

We also use Dell, but we mostly choose HPE servers because of price and stability. I'm currently only selling one Dell server model. It's hard for me to compare the two because I'm not as familiar with Dell. 

I sell HPE most of the time, so I'm more comfortable with HPE's stability. I'm not as familiar with Dell's model in the same price range. I tend to sell HPE unless the customer prefers Dell for some reason. I can't make a fair comparison. 

I rate ProLiant servers nine out of 10 for ease of setup. The installation is straightforward. Most clients only need to give me a server name and IP address. After that, you need to configure virtualization if the customer wants that. They need to do the configuration training. 

HPE is more popular with my clients because of the price. They will generally go with HPE unless another brand in the market can offer the same specs cheaper with the same stability and service quality. Our customers are generally happy with HPE's price. 

I rate HPE ProLiant DL servers nine out of 10. I'm satisfied with the product.

We primarily use the solution in our company and our client's company.

I trust the hardware mostly. 

There are some features like intelligent provisioning, et cetera, which are quite useful.

The ILO for management is great.

It's scalable.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

I want to improve hyper-converged sites. We are mostly working with the DL series, however, now we are trying to work with more hyper-converged.

I've used the solution for more than 20 years. 

We are really happy with HP ProLiant Servers. They are stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

We find the solution to be scalable. 

At this time, we have more than 100 users on the solution. 

We work with clients that have companies that vary in size, from small to large.

Technical support has been great. I have been quite satisfied with their level of assistance.

We use ProLiant Servers and SimpliVity. We've also worked with Dell. The quality of HP is better here in Turkey. It's faster, and they come with spare parts. There's a shorter timeframe to replace hardware if parts are defective. 

How difficult or straightforward the implementation process is depends on the customer's location. We have lots of customers in Turkey. Some of them are complex, and some of them are simple.

We have three admins that can handle maintenance tasks. 

While the price is okay, the price of Dell is lower. 

I'm a reseller. We are HPE partners.

I'd advise users to try HP. It's a good solution. However, it depends on the customer. Some prefer working with Dell. If a company already has Dell infrastructure, we advise them to continue with Dell to have a homogenous environment. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

When you compare hyper-converged with ProLiant, hyper-converged is more available due to the clusters; you can cluster it. However, for ProLiant, you have to find a solution with VMware or something like that, for example,  third-party solutions. That said, on the hardware side, ProLiant has no cluster option.

With HPE ProLiant, you can run a Windows operating system or a Linux OS based on Intel architecture. We also use several applications like iLO to manage the servers within the architecture of our serverless AMD processors. 

Alternatively, you can use another monitoring solution like HP OneView to manage ProLiant Servers. It's a product for monitoring and managing the servers. In addition to monitoring software, ProLiant can be managed with a cloud-based solution. For example, HP's cloud-based InfoSight solution lets you monitor your server and storage, including ProLiant and Intel. 

ProLiant can be mounted in different types of server racks, like a CD or tower. The tower solution of ProLiant is for a small site or office. With this type of tower server, you can add a kit as well. ProLiant has several servers: 150, 350, 380. And there is another ProLiant architecture that you can install in a Synergy and BladeSystem enclosure. 

HPE's iLO server management software is a handy tool to install and deploy. OneView is also suitable for management, but you need a license for it. You can use OneView's monitoring features for free, but you need to pay for management capabilities. In the latest generation, Gen10, you have to add a license for iLO. In addition, generation 10 requires an ISO license to use iLO for management. And if you're working with Synergy, there is another new product like SimpliVity. SimpliVity has a helpful product that is based on ProLiant and another type of architecture similar to Apollo.

It would be great if HP could use a ProLiant Server to run HP-UX, the Unix build from HPE. Right now, HP-UX cannot run on the ProLiant architecture. So if HP made HP-UX compatible with ProLiant Servers, it would be pretty helpful. On the other hand, Linux is also replacing HP-UX, so maybe HP doesn't need to integrate this architecture into ProLiant. 

If you look at ProLiant's trajectory, I think the next generation will be focused on adding memory. Currently, there is a gap in the memory technology, so I'm predicting that the internal disk for the next generation of ProLiant will be RAM only. I believe this high-speed disk will be available in the next generation. I think the disk will be integrated into the RAM architecture. 

With the improved RAM architecture, the disk will be faster than the first-class disk because there are other protocols between memory and disk. If you have your disk, you look at the disk in terms of the motherboard. If you add to the processor, it would be faster. All disks in this architecture will be in the solution's memory.

I've been working with ProLiant for almost 10 years. And two or three months ago, I implemented several ProLiant Servers running Windows. It was a very short project — a  small solution for a small customer. The majority of my experience has been with HPE servers like ProLiant and Integrity. I've been working with HPE products for about 18 years, including HPE infrastructure, storage, and servers products. So I've been working with HPE since my first job after I graduated.

ProLiant Servers are stable because they have redundant elements built in.

I would say ProLiant Servers are scalable, but it also depends on the architecture. You can scale up with Synergy. For example, you can add two servers into one node. So if it's part of the cluster, it also depends on the operating system that's running. 

When our customers deploy a ProLiant server, we're usually the ones providing support. We have a three-year contract for hardware and software support. The procedure for escalating to HP is pretty straightforward. You contact an HP call center then they verify your system handle or serial. If the server has an active contract, the response from the engineer depends on the conditions of the contract. Some contracts are six hours. That means they're going to solve your problem in six hours.

Installing ProLiant is straightforward. There are different ways you can deploy. You can deploy it locally using the graphical user interface, or you also have the option to set it up using a shell. You only need some basic knowledge to install ProLiant. The procedure is pretty similar to setting up a PC or a laptop. ProLiant has an array of tools, so you can easily install the servers without any experience. The installer has a simple Windows-based GUI, so you just click through the wizard and provide some information to the servers. 

You don't need a deep understanding of the architecture. If you have a fundamental knowledge of operating systems like Windows, you can handle this with no problem. Also, HP has a lot of information available online, including video tutorials on installing your ProLiant Servers. HP has several channels to provide information for customers and engineers.

The time needed to deploy depends on the scale and your environment. If you want to deploy just one ProLiant server, it takes maybe 30 minutes. If you're going to deploy a Synergy of BladeSystem with different modules inside, you might need to spend an entire workday on it. Maybe it takes a day to install all your servers or maybe less. But installing a single ProLiant rack-based server can be done in 30 minutes, including installing the operating system. Installing the operating system, updating your system, etc., will take maybe 30 or 40 minutes.

10 out of 10. The latest generation is the best, but Generation 6 was very stable. It was a good one. Now Generation 10 is the best. I don't know why they took so long to upgrade this generation. Still, Generation 10 has improved a lot in memory and processing, so you can operate in an environment that supports ProLiant. That's why I think HP-UX will disappear because Linux can run this environment on the ProLiant architecture very well.

For example, the range of velocity and processor speed is four or five times greater than before. You can run every Linux environment, which can replace the Unix environment. You can run this Linux environment inside the ProLiant and get the same service as a Unix environment. That's why Linux and ProLiant run very well.

There are concerns about the HPE team in the Southeast Asia region, suggesting a need for improvements in terms of responsiveness. There have been instances where the response time was slow, causing challenges during urgent situations. Its stability also needs to improve. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

We haven't received any complaints about the tool's stability. It works properly in a five-year lifetime. 

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. 

The product's competitor is Dell. 

The solution's deployment was easy. 

The solution's pricing is high. It needs to be more flexible. The flexibility would be beneficial for our clients, especially in a competitive market. Adding additional features and addressing complex requirements on top of the price can be challenging for us as a reseller.

In project tenders, system requirements are specified, including the number of cores, storage, and personnel needed. The information is shared with the HPE team to prepare a BQ specifying the server model to be used. The tool is a good physical server. 

The choice of server category or type is not specific and varies case by case. Customers may initially purchase higher servers than their immediate requirements, anticipating future use cases. It's a complex decision and depends on individual circumstances.

The product's roadmap seems to be good. Its deployments are mostly on-prem due to government regulations.

The product is purchased specifically for security solutions, not for the entire data center stack. It is recommended for medium to enterprise-level customers. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using the solution for less critical services.

They should improve the speed of the solution's processor. A core banking service like ours needs faster processing for our central server. We have to run an extensive process half yearly. The solution takes more than 24 to 30 hours to complete it. Ideally, it should take six to seven hours. Our industry is growing daily with an increase in the number of customers. Thus, we plan to move to a solution with better processing speed.

They should build risc processors with high speed. Additionally, they should reduce the prices as it is a significant concern for developing countries such as us.

We have been using the solution since the year 2012 or 2013.

It is a stable solution.

We have around 15-20 users of the solution in our organization.

The solution's customer service is good.

The solution's ROI is worth it for mid-level services.

The solution is not highly-priced, but it is more expensive than Dell.

The solution has a good performance ratio. I rate the solution as a seven.

We have one SQL server, one repository called Solidworks Designs, and one called Karmatic.

The most valuable feature of the solution is scalability.

The licensing fees are expensive and have room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We purchased enough resources to ensure we could meet our requirements.

The initial setup is straightforward and took a few minutes. The deployment was simple. We only needed to install a Windows server.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have to pay for an annual license which is expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We have twenty people using the solution in our organization and plan to increase that number to 30.

We require five people to maintain the solution consisting of managers and automation engineers.

I recommend the solution to others.

We use the solution for the DR site and run it on the infrastructure system.

The scalability of the product is the same as the Cisco solution and we have the same number of people working with it.

Technical support are mostly helpful.

The pricing is reasonable. We pay approximately 30 to 35K, which is cheap.

The product is lower quality than its competitors in terms of performance. The hardware  was frequently faulty and sometimes broke down. 

I would therefore give it an overall rating of eight out of 10.

We use ProLiant servers for VDI and Dell VMs, which are agents for backups and SQL, Oracle, and Mongo DB databases. We mostly use DL360, DL318, DL16, DL518, and other models for combustible systems from HPE.

ProLiant DL servers are the best on the market. The models support an extensive list of Intel processors.

The servers should include OneView for intelligence provisioning.

I have been using ProLiant DL servers for about 10 years.

ProLiant DL servers are stable.

The scalability is good.

HPE support is excellent. I rate their support nine out of 10. 

Positive

Setting up ProLiant servers isn't easy, but it's not too difficult. It's a little complicated to install our operating system if you don't have drivers. For example, it's challenging to install with Windows Server and Red Hat. In the case of Windows Server, you need to install intelligence provisioning, but it's not used in most cases. It requires an engineer and a specialist to maintain the solution. 

HPE servers are expensive.

I rate HPE ProLiant DL servers nine out of 10. I recommend HPE servers. It's a good product. If you plan to implement DL servers, you should check the family of the network and storage cards, and you should create a list of components so there isn't a delay in delivery.