HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We have several HPE ProLiant DL Server models in use, DL360, 380, and 580.

We use the servers for multiple business services.

The quality and the technical support are the most valuable features.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I am currently using HPE ProLiant DL Servers.

The solution is scalable.

The solution is expensive.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

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 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. 

Our primary use case is as our domain controller and file services, our local CR applications, and our ERP, local ERP. The main service we're using is the local ERP with Oracle DB.

Technical support is helpful.

It's very easy to set up.

The product has a more flexible infrastructure and management consultation in comparison to Dell.

It's energy-efficient. It's consumed less energy than the previous solution and the performance is great.

We'd like the solution to be more energy efficient so that we need less cooling or less dependence on a cooling system. 

Its management console could be better. There should be some tools and tips added so that, if a beginner's level goes for management, you can easily find tools and tips, and help them manage everything in case of emergency before going to technical support from HP.

We've used the solution for a year. We started using it last March.

The on-premises version is quite stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. In the time we've used it, it has been issue-free.

It's easily scalable and you can expand it pretty well.

We are 48 in-house users, and our remote users are more than 200.

Technical support is very cooperative and helpful. 

We have a contract where they can give us support. Within the next 30 minutes, they will respond, for HP and for VMware as well. With VMware, we can get support online and from a remote desktop or remote services. They will always provide us support for hardware and technical support from HP, which we have contracted. The largest delay we deal with is the next business day, however, typically, they come to us within 30 minutes to one hour time.

We replaced Dell with this solution as Dell is no longer present in our country. While we were satisfied with Dell, we had to replace it. There are only a few Dell vendors left however they aren't so good in terms of support anymore now that they aren't in the country.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

Our deployment took less than 15 days. 

Setup assistance was provided by HP as well as VMware. They moved our VM from the old infrastructure to the new one.

In terms of ROI, for what we have invested in it, we are getting the same amount out. 

We purchased the license for HP with technical support included.

We have a three-year license that we pay for yearly.

It is affordable. After three years, we are going to have SLA with them, like the way we previously had with Dell.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

We are using the on-prem version of the solution as the connectivity is not very stable. We cannot afford a cloud solution.

We have a service contract with VMware and HP as well for support.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We have installed VMware on DL Server, and the operating system sits on this DL Server host.

This is all I've ever used. These servers are strong, and they have very few failures on them. They are also easy to manage and monitor.

They are pretty solid servers, but, just like all servers, they become obsolete after some time.

They can maybe provide a console to monitor the health of the servers. There should be some kind of console to which you can log in to remotely check on the health of a server, even when the server is off.

The servers that we have are only scalable to some extent. They have got a limited amount of hard drive that you can insert. Their scalability should be improved.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

They are pretty stable servers. The hardware failures are very minor. We do have one or two hardware failures but very far spaced. The major failures are mostly operating system failures, but on the hardware, they have been working pretty well.

They are scalable to some extent. For instance, you can only put a specific amount of hard drive on the base. You can insert the hard drives of a limited size, which makes them not very scalable. This could be dependent on the servers that you have. There are probably models that are more scalable than what we have.

We have about 200 people on the site, and they use it on a daily basis.

We have not contacted them. We didn't have any major issues to escalate. The few issues that we had were easily resolvable. You can also use online support to check. There are quite a number of people using these servers. You can share problems and get some advice from someone who has faced the same problem before.

We will be switching to a combination of Cisco and Dell EMC. For computation, it will be Cisco, and for storage, it will be Dell EMC. The main reason for this switch is group policy. The group has decided that we move from HP and use Cisco with EMC Storage.

The initial setup is a simple process. The old ones used to have a CD that would guide you through the process. Newer ones should also have a system where you go step-by-step and install your operating system and configure it.

I deployed it myself. I got servers from a company and then installed and configured them. All servers were not deployed at once. I deployed just one server at a time. Typically, deploying a server, including the operating system and everything else, takes less than two hours. I also do the maintenance.

Proliant DL Servers have a reasonable cost. They are not as expensive as the Cisco servers. Everything is included when you purchase a server. You just have to install and configure it.

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

The scalability, rapidness, and computing are actually very good. It's a Gen9 server that we've been working with, so it is pretty good.

The benefit is that they're pretty reliable. Reliability is pretty much what we need.

There is need to improve the iLO support. There's a management part of the server that they've improved and that was a big deal.

The product is very stable and the support is very good.

Scalability is very good. We were able to move from the servers and upgrade them very easily. It has worked very nicely and is serving generation to generation over the years, so it is pretty good.

The technical support was very good. We have a pretty decent relationship; we have a four-hour onsite repair.

We've tried other products and have had some issues in the past. However, HPE has been the most reliable solution.

We have different locations; in my location, I was involved in the setup. It was pretty straightforward.

We have used IBM and Compaq back in the day.

For us, an important factor while selecting a vendor is that the actual company backing the product. We know that we're a company that has been around a long time in the industry.

You would be foolish not to be looking into HPE. A lot of their products seem very interesting and they are very useful in our field.

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 use the servers to run our student information system. It's an accounting package within the bursary of the university.

We are currently on generation 8 or 9. The solution is hardware, so it's deployed on-prem.

Apart from users, there are five people that interact with the hardware directly. There are others who interact with the services that run from these servers. It's a school environment, so there are about 30,000 or more students and staff.

Previously, when we were using Zimbra for email services, it was run locally. We have stopped using that because we subscribe to Microsoft Office 360 email services, which run from the cloud. That has been taken off the servers. 

Now that other applications are being developed, we hope to eventually be able to cater for the different administrative and academic departments in the university. We are hoping that some of this hardware will definitely have to be replaced. Of course, that will depend on the budget and the availability of funds that the university management is willing to make available. But it's going to be a step-by-step thing. There has to be planning and then budgetary provisions to be able to take care of these items.

We are just customers. We don't have a direct link with HPE, but through the HPE product suppliers. We have a new direct now, and in one of the meetings we had, he came up with the idea of finding a way to having that direct contact with HPE or Synergy and how perhaps we could patronize each other in terms of the servers, in terms of PCs for staff and students, and the kind of technical support that we can equally enjoy from HPE.

Where there is a need to actually expand on the capacity, it's easily done, especially when more memory is needed.

We have been experiencing a problem with the power pack. It gets fried and then we have to do a replacement.

There is a challenge sometimes with having quick access to some of these components when you need them. It takes a lot of time to get spare parts from genuine sellers.

You need the memories for servers. They're delivered. You put them in, and the system doesn't come up, so you have to return them. For me, that has been the major challenge.

In the day-to-day running, there's always room for improvement. If you need assistance in real time, it would be helpful if there was such a room where someone could be there and help you solve the problem in real time.

The number of people you are serving is increasing by the day, and they need immediate solutions to their issues. Sometimes you have limitations as to getting solutions to some of these issues that come up, but you are dependent on the information available to you. Being the product manufacturers also, I'm sure they have a lot of solutions to the different issues depending on the feedback they've been able to get from the field all across the world, especially those using their products. I think that would go a long way in helping.

I have been using this solution for more than 10 years.

The main challenge we actually have is the issue of having a good, steady power supply. Whenever there's a power outage, it forces the server to go down. That in itself increases the rate of failure of the hardware. By implication, the services that have been provided are truncated at one point or the other. Management has promised to see how they can intervene in that respect, but that is left to be seen.

The scalability is fine for the limited number of services and the need to actually scale. Because of this same power issue, I had to virtualize where we have to run different services on the same hardware server. That is where the issue of expanding the memory capacity came in. 

In terms of the processor, we have not been able to do that. The reason is because you send for a part, it is brought in, you plug it in, and then there's a mismatch. Then the system doesn't run well. You have to return it. But I think it will expand our memory and expand the storage. We haven't been able to expand or increase the processing and the processor capacity. But we would be glad to have any other information we need to know or other skills that we need to learn to allow us to manage this equipment better and to maximize or to optimize their usage, that would be good enough.

Technical support has been okay regarding looking for solutions on the internet. When you have certain challenges and make a post in the forum seeking an immediate solution, it all depends on who gets those queries and is able to respond. In most cases, we have been able to get the solutions from the past experience of others who have had similar issues that have been put in the repository. 

On the whole, I think it's good enough even though we haven't been able to directly chat one-on-one or about issues.

It can only get difficult depending on what application or operating system you want to install. Then it all depends on how good or how skillful one is with the particular application. But the installation and configuration is never a problem. There has never been a problem with the hardware that I can say, apart from the issues I have already mentioned.

We have different people for different specific assignments. For each team, we have a good number of people. We are thinking of expanding because the university is a multi-campus university, and it has about four campuses, even though the whole thing is being centrally run. We are thinking of having these services run 24/7, and then we would need to have more hands so no one is overwhelmed with the work on ground. Currently, for those manning the server, we have about five people.

Implementation was completed by our own technical team from within the ICT directorate.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.