Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers Reviews

It's a large virtualization environment where our students and our researchers have all the machines running and it's realized with VMware.

We appreciate the stability of all the machines.

The easy mountings are convenient. 

We have some direct connections to IBM and Lenovo, as well as other companies. They offer us very good manufacturer support. Technical support has been very good and we've been satisfied with the level of service we get.

The solution is very simple to install.

There are so many features, it's difficult to even use them all. Therefore, I don't believe there are any features that are lacking.

From our side, our budgets are really not there. The availability of cash is a little bit limited. We buy as much as we can, If it was less expensive, we could buy more.  

I deal with this solution about once a year.

The solution is stable. It's very reliable. There aren't glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale quite easily. If you need to expand it, you can do so rather easily.

We have about 1,000 people on the servers that we have. They are all students and researchers.

We'll continue to use this product going forward.

We've had a good experience with technical support. We have some direct channels there. With Lenovo, we also have a mainframe on our site for demonstration purposes. We are lucky to have a direct connection to the engineers.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very straightforward.

Deployment times vary. If students are doing it, it might take a little bit longer, however, if we handle it ourselves, we can do it relatively quickly.

It's difficult to count how many people we have on deployment and maintenance duties as they're all part-time. We have about four to five full-time equivalents.

I am part of the consulting team. The work is done by some assistants or to teach a student as I'm a lecturer at the University.

The cost is a bit pricey. We'd buy more from them if we could, however, we are on a limited budget.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Lenovo.

Normally, we are not using the latest version of the solution due to the fact that they are too expensive. We are a university and we have to look for how much money we use. Therefore, often we end up buying some refurbished machines or some equipment from IBM, from Lenovo, etc., which we get at reasonable prices.

Everything is on-premises and we have our own private cloud with these machines.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at a nine.

We are using this solution without any errors on the main boards or other systems. We are also using the storage of Lenovo, that is, V7000. We have 30 VM machines on the servers here, and we are using SP1 scalable processors.

We are buying all the things to use from Lenovo. Everything comes from Lenovo, that is, hard drives, racks, memory, and processors.

The IMM tool is great because we can upgrade different views and device versions very quickly. We can upgrade everything from a single point through a single dashboard, which is great for us because we also have Lenovo storage. Lenovo ThinkSystem also has Xclarity built into the system.

HP has a riser inside, but Lenovo does not have a riser. It would be good to have a riser with Lenovo. The GUI of the system is really bad. HP has a very good UI for smart memories and everything inside, but in Lenovo, we have a black-and-white UI.

HP right now manufactures a server with scalable SP1 and SP2 on a single machine, which is not the case with Lenovo. They are changing the machine. For SP 1, there is one server, and for SP2, there is another server, which is really bad. In HP, we can use two models of processors in a single case. Lenovo should also be improved to have SP1 and SP2 scalable processors simultaneously on a single machine. They should not release another machine. This issue is also there in H3650 severs. They are all inside, but only V3 CPU or only v4 CPU can work, whereas, in HBG9, we can deploy V3 and V4 simultaneously.

Lenovo also needs to advertise more because I can't see advertisements anywhere. 

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

It is stable.

It is scalable. We are deploying the servers for our customers. One of our customers has about 100 people working in the factory.

I got support for a license issue, where I made a mistake in typing the serial number because of which it wasn't matching. Their support was really great. They edited my serial number, and I could get the IMM license very quickly.

It is not complex. It is easy for us. The deployment took less than a week because we know what we should do. In four or five days, we had deployed it into the server. HP is easier to deploy than Lenovo. 

The licensing cost is the same as HP. It doesn't have any additional cost. However, the price, for example, for the memory option, does not match other vendors such as HP or Dell. They should work on the pricing of Lenovo. It is a great competitor, and it should compete with the price. 

I would rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for virtualization purposes. We are running a huge amount of different VM's on them.

The usage of the server itself, the hardware specs of the specific models is more than enough for the project or projects' needs. The controllers which were used, or the hardware (HDDs or solid drives from Lenovo, which are used in this hardware) are more than enough for our project needs. Overall, the general configuration of the server, the system, truly covers the project needs.

Most of our projects come with a pretty heavy workload. The server itself covers all of the bases — my clients are really happy with it.

For example, one of the projects is from a medical laboratory company that provides services for medical institutions. There are a lot of workload calculations and Rack Servers covers the mix.

HP and Dell servers have multi-house technology that is really easy to use. We don't experience any problems with logging or gathering hardware information. The rest of the technical and software stuff is absolutely the same no matter the manufacturer. So, from a technical perspective, it is the same.

The general purpose of this hardware is the same, the functionality is the same, it just goes by a different name. As I mentioned, the stability of the server itself is a benefit for me; it's more reliable now.

From my perspective, from my case usage, I wouldn't say that I have seen a lot of space for a general upgrade of the system. The technology is constantly developing. It's just a matter of the client or customer getting the most high-end service for a long period of time — for example, one or two years. In three years, this technology will be old and there will be new technology available. Presently, I wouldn't say that there is space for much improvement on the current servers.

Technology is developing continuously. We are getting new high-end drives and so on. Technology development does not simply stop in its tracks, waiting until you adopt that server right now — in three to five years, it will be obsolete. You will be still able to buy some hardware in order to upgrade it because the platform itself is universal, but it's up to you whether you buy something old or something new and upgrade it.

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

I would say the stability of the system itself would be the biggest advantage. I have worked with other manufacturers — Firmware for example — and they are not so stable.

Your budget determines the scalability. It's absolutely scalable and you can upgrade the platform with the hardware you are planning to use.

I have used their support from time to time, in some cases when I was unable to find immediate information. I don't remember if I contacted them directly or just used their website to gather information. There are a lot of cases where you can just find everything you need on their website.

I would give their technical support a rating of nine.

From an administrative perspective, the initial setup is absolutely straightforward. From a user's perspective, it not so straightforward if you want to add some features. The old servers don't have the stability needed to manage the storage from the remote management tool; it's not really comfortable, but still usable. It's absolutely fine when setting up the server.

The basic setup takes less than one hour. It depends on where the servers are deployed from and how ready the server is. I mostly work remotely, so I am not hands-on with the server. Deployment is just a matter of the network and how it was prepared previously. At minimum, deployment takes one hour.

Whether we use a deployment plan depends on the customer and their needs.

The person who will be deploying the server should get the basic information on the needs of the project first, and compare it to the hardware specifications that this specific hardware or any specific hardware will provide. If there is a level for any upgrade, it's absolutely fine. The person should be looking for a solution that will cover the needs of the project with more than a difference of 100% for the future. The projects will increase the size of it, so the server should cover the current needs of the projects, plus 100%.

Our customers absolutely see a return on their investment with Lenovo Rack Servers.

The price in comparison, for example, to deploying a cloud solution on a cloud platform, is fully coverable in terms of deploying the same solution on personal hardware. So yes, it's coverable.

I don't really remember the prices for the servers but in comparison with the bigger players on the market, their prices are fine with me. They are not ideal because clients will always want a lower price. Regarding the licensing, I don't have any information on that because I wasn't facing any cases where we needed additional licensing on the servers.

The general usage of the hardware itself is a level of education that you get during the process of the initial setup and further maintenance of the servers. That alone is very valuable. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. I cannot give it a higher rating because the perfect solution does not exist.

I use Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers to run our university's ERP system and specialized software for long-distance learning. These servers also support seamless file sharing.

What I like the most about Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers is that they save space by consolidating everything into one cabinet, making management more straightforward. Additionally, easy integration with UPS systems provides added convenience and efficiency for our operations.

Improvements could be made in the network cards, particularly by offering options for higher-speed cards beyond the current 10 GB. Upgrading to faster network cards would enhance performance and meet the demand for increased network speeds.

I have been working with Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers for almost four years.

We have not had any major stability issues with Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers are scalable enough for our needs and serve a variety of enterprise clients.

I would rate Lenovo's technical support as an eight out of ten. It is quite good.

Positive

Deployment required a small team and it was handled by one internal person and supported by a couple of engineers from our supplier. It is quite easy to maintain the servers.

The pricing of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers is quite competitive with yearly licenses.

My advice to new users is not to focus too much on benchmark indicators for servers. The key is finding servers that align with your specific application needs and optimizing them for performance, regardless of the brand. It is more about how well the servers suit your applications than just the brand's performance claims. Overall, I would rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers as an eight out of ten.

We use the Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers for file, print, and storage servers. Additionally, for office collaboration.

The hardware performance is very valuable.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers does a very good job. However, what could be improved can be their Configurator because it's very bulky and it sometimes gives logical errors.

The dashboard and customization can improve.

I have been using Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers for a long time.

The reliability is extremely good. It is very stable, it can run forever.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers is scalable. however, in our case, we are a one-site office, we don't scale the solution that much. We look at the specifications and we use it until it is out of warranty and maybe we replace it or upgrade.

The technical support is very good from Lenovo.

The setup of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers was simple.

The price of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers is competitive.

We did not evaluate other options because we are an IBM business partner. Lenovo is our go-to brand.

I rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers an eight out of ten.

Our clients use it for server virtualization.

Its performance and the local support of Lenovo in my city are the most valuable features. Its performance is the best, and its user interface is also very easy.

Its price could be better. Its price is sometimes an issue for our clients.

XClarity Controller is a very good feature, and Lenovo should include the XClarity Controller license without any additional cost. It should be integrated within the product.

I have been using this solution for ten years or so.

It has very good stability. Lenovo systems are very good in this aspect.

Its scalability is fine for me. Our clients are usually SMB, but we also have some large enterprises.

I am very satisfied with their support.

Its initial setup is very easy. The deployment generally takes two or three days, but the duration also depends on the complexity of the solution. One person is sufficient for its deployment.

Its pricing is very competitive.

Our clients evaluate Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Dell. I find Lenovo better in terms of performance, support, and price. Its performance is good for me. Other vendors are not bad, but Lenovo is usually my first choice. 

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers a ten out of ten.

We started adding servers to our central offices, and we considered HP devices, but we found Lenovo was a better choice for us. 

It performs really well, and the price is cheaper than other solutions. They are extremely reliable. 

The management troubles us a bit. We also had some issues getting VMware to run on the Lenovo servers. We were told to go to HP but we stuck with Lenovo. 

I would like to see the management port improved. We do use XClarity, which is from Lenovo, but it still needs an upgrade. It is difficult to work with and it would be beneficial for Lenovo to improve this.

The stability is great.

This is a scalable product. When considering discs to servers, it is very reliable.

We have another party that handles our tech support issues.

About eight years ago, IBM was our preferred supplier. They were also the cheapest. We switched because IBM sold their hardware service to Lenovo.

At one point, we also considered Intel servers, but we still stayed with Lenovo.

It was complex to get this started because the Lenovo and VMware are not very compatible. We had to get some updates in order for it to be implemented.

It is the cheapest solution we have seen on the market.

When considering a vendor, I always consider reliability and cost. 

Implementation of site backup. 

Improvements came in as:

• Server scalability
• Better asset-park management
• Better security to keep services active
• Convergence between manageable equipment
• Many other benefits resulted in better service delivery and continuity.

• Implementation of server clusters using VMware. 
• Ensures high availability, better hardware management, and support for active features.

To date, we have not seen any need for improvements.

Throughout the use of the product, special needs will arise which may require a global need.

As the costs got high, we had to use the virtualization feature to consolidate the server farm.