Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers Reviews

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.

The management/load performance is the most valuable feature.

The hardware can be evaluated by its efficient management, resource visibility and easy to use features.

Secondly, performance is the main goal of the machines. I have very good experience with the IBM Server and Storage.

The peak performance has made the organization's key application up and running; it has never failed.

IBM hardware takes time for building/assembling. Also, the firmware update process takes too much time as compared to the other vendors like Dell.

I have used this solution for nine years.

During firmware updates/NIC teaming , some errors were experienced.

There were no scalability issues.

I would rate the technical support a 9/10.

Previously, we were using IBM; it provides the most efficient and reliable computing hardware.

Setup is a little complex, i.e., in terms of the firmware and system updates.

We looked at Dell Chassis M1000e and HPE c7000.

The installation and configuration are a bit difficult but the product's performance is unbeatable.

I really appreciate the robust performance.

It has really helped us with its steady, smooth performance, and stability.

I would like to see an automatic call home feature for IMM2.

I have used it for just over one year.

I have never encountered any stability issues.

I have never encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support was very good. IBM support is very helpful.

I did not use a previous solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We evaluated Dell and Hitachi blade servers.