Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Reviews

We are using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for cloud infrastructure, mostly for ROS and Nutanix.

Integration is seamless without any issues, and it can scale by increasing memory or disk capacity.

We have been using basic functionality, and there are no problems with the product stability or integration.

I may not be the right person to comment on advanced improvements because we are just using basic functionalities. We are getting all the functionalities which we used to get in other OEM rack servers.

Potential areas for improvement may include a more flexible pricing model, better technical support, or tutorials from the vendor for users.

We have been using this solution for around one year.

Currently I do not see any problems with deployment.

Currently I do not see any stability issues with Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers.

The solution provides good scalability in terms of increasing memory capacity and disk capacity. These features are available in Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers.

We need to evaluate the support we get from Cisco and compare it with HP to determine which solution is more preferable to work with.

Positive

We have been using HP for a decade and were happy with their products without any problems. Recently we started with Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers and are monitoring its performance.

The setup process is simple without any problems.

The main competitor in the market is HP, which we have been using for a decade.

We are using it for cloud infrastructure. The integration with IT infrastructure is seamless based on our experience.

We are not using Unified Management features such as FC and FCoE.

The price should be competitive with other OEMs, and a more flexible pricing model could be beneficial for users.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers can be recommended for all verticals: small, medium, and large enterprises.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 8.

We are running AI on Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, and we can do it sometimes even without any GPU.

It is great because we can move from one server to another without changing anything. We can move all the identity of the servers between the servers.

If you are integrated into the Cisco management solution, it is very easy to handle. 

The performance aspects of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are very strong.

The ability to move from one server to another without changing anything is excellent. We can transfer all the identity of the servers between the servers.

The system works very stably, and we have not experienced any problems with stability and performance.

We see return on investment with Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers; otherwise, we would not use it.

We have not calculated exactly how long it took to realize return on investment. However, it is very important that the system has high availability, and we never have significant problems or outages.

The solution is not as economical as other vendors. When compared to Dell or HP Enterprise, it is somewhat more expensive.

I would strongly recommend Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers to others.

My main use case for Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is hypervisors, using them as a hypervisor.

The feature I appreciate most about Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is that they are uniform and consistent, which saves time. You need to manage everything in one place.

The end-to-end visibility from Cisco assists in affecting my organization's troubleshooting capabilities because it definitely makes it more efficient.

I think Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers could be improved, but I'm not really a forward thinker; everything works pretty well with how we're using it. It's not really an improvement, but the solution is expensive. Additionally, the licensing gets confusing.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for fifteen years.

My experience with deploying Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is that there are not really challenges, but when we do have challenges, Cisco support has been right on it and able to walk us through things.

In terms of support for Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, I would rate it a ten.

Prior to adopting Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, I was using multiple other solutions such as HPs and Dells to address similar needs, and I prefer Cisco because all of our networking is consistent.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is not troublesome, but it is confusing. It takes a lot of time to navigate licensing and to work through the complexities.

In assessing the operational efficiency of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers in my IT environment, I would say approximately an eight. The solution is good.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is that it is good.

I face no specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco addresses.

I would rate this product an eight overall.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are useful for managing many workloads, for example, virtualization, CCTV projects, AIa, and ML projects.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are Intel-based servers, but they offer certain big features, like features related to Cisco UCS Virtual Interface Card (VIC). Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers hook up to Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects, and then it goes as a leaf in Cisco ACI, and such an architecture gives a good network and bandwidth for both north-south and east-west access. Bandwidth is never a constraint because of Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects. The rack server itself is mostly networking since everything remaining is available with any other vendor. With rack servers, Cisco UCS VIC capabilities are good, allowing them to connect to Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects, so bandwidth is never a constraint.

If you ask anyone, they would say the product is pretty expensive, making it an area of shortcoming where improvements are required.

As a partner of Cisco involved in the positioning of rack servers alone, I can say that it will never be a winning proposition for my company in the long run. There is always a need to make it a part of a bigger project in our company to make the product more sellable. Rack servers alone are very expensive. When it becomes part of an overall solution, Cisco provides customers with good discounts, making it a competitive product in the market. There is always a break-even point, so only after a certain amount of value is invested and derived does the value of the discount on the product start to kick in, making it an easily sellable product.

In the future, high-density servers can become very important, meaning Cisco should introduce four or eight CPU socket solutions that can really help. Cisco should start building reference architectures with the likes of Schlumberger, not only with just another oil and gas application vendor but with all application vendors. Once you have reference architecture, the customer always reaches out to the product that offers something Schlumberger likes and other application vendors. If Schlumberger recommends Cisco to others, then it becomes easy to sell it, and it gives confidence to the customers since the application vendor supports products from Cisco.

The scalability of the product is an area of concern where Cisco needs to focus on making some improvements.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for five years. My company has a partnership with Cisco.

The product's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The challenge related to the solution is related to the number of CPUs per node.

The solution is suitable for enterprise-sized businesses.

Technical support for the solution takes a long time to deal with root cause analysis. I rate the technical support a seven to eight out of ten.

Neutral

The product's initial setup phase was pretty simple, so it's not very complicated. Once you have the design in place, I think the setup phase is pretty okay.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model for most of our projects in Qatar.

Speaking about the comparison of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers, there is nothing unique about the servers offered by Cisco since they are mostly Intel's consumer-grade servers. The only thing you need about Cisco's offerings is Cisco UCS Virtual Interface Card (VIC), and then it connects to Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects. When we talk about the ecosystem, the solution becomes quite unique, but apart from that, it's pretty much the same since there isn't much you can do with rack servers.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We use these rack servers for terminal operating systems.

The initial setup could be easier.

I have been working with Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for five years.

This is a stable product.

For our use case, this product is scalable up to 16 blades, including two sites. I don't know how well it would scale beyond that because we don't have a big site.

We have between 400 and 500 users, without plans to increase that number at this time.

The technical support from Cisco is fine.

I would rate the support for this product a four out of five.

I have used several different types of rack servers in the past, including others from Cisco such as the B-Series, Dell, and HPE.

I currently use the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series. It provides additional features, such as automatic deployment.

This initial setup is more complex than the Cisco HyperFlex, although ultimately, it is okay. It took us approximately one day to deploy.

I would rate the initial setup a four out of five.

We completed the deployment in-house. We have a combined team that is used for the deployment, troubleshooting, and maintenance of our products. We don't have a team that is dedicated to this product.

The maintenance for this product is good.

We have to pay for the VMware and Cisco licenses.

In summary, this is a good product and it's sustainable. We have had no issues with these servers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers support our communications manager, deployments for Cisco Unity Connection and presence server, and Contact Center Enterprise, primarily for collaboration.

The best feature is the flexibility to virtualize virtual machines in the product. The UCS is a server where users create virtual machines and deploy servers.

The solution could improve the password reset and recovery procedure.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers as a partner for eight or nine years.

The stability is good. We have never had any issues in ten years of deploying the solution. There may be a VMware bug or machine power outage. The UCS C-Series hardware doesn't have any problem with the equipment.

The scalability is good. The solution includes all technical requirements or software licenses under the main SKU. If you need more space or storage in the hard disk or more RAM. It is easy to order additional parts or additional SKUs to scale the product.

Cisco solves any issue with the hardware or software. I always receive good service and support. The support is important for the customers. Cisco is 24/7, 7 days a week. The support is excellent.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy. Cisco documentation, specifically the UCS C-Series, is excellent. They have an installation wizard, so you can follow the step-by-step and finish the initial configuration. It takes around two hours to complete. Two people are required for the physical installation, but I do it myself for the logical configuration.

Cisco is expensive but has many more features, integrations, and support. Other brands are relatively cheap, but post-sales support is very decent.

I advise you to check the documentation. Cisco has very detailed documentation for each solution. You can find an installation guide, solution guide, and end-user guide. The installation or implementation process is very easy after the technical documentation, specifically with UCS servers. Also, check the engineer’s knowledge about Hypervisor for the virtualizations in the server. The UCS server has a Linux operating system, but you must deploy Hypervisor.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use is for virtualization.

They are currently used for VMware management.

On the Cisco side, there is a benefit in terms of server management. Cisco provides UCS Manager, which is a multi-tenant site manager. We can manage multiple sites while maintaining disaster recovery, a feature not available on other platforms.  That's about the added value.

For the Cisco side, improvements could be made in terms of scalability, costing, available capabilities, or support for multiple types of hard drives. 

Cisco currently supports a limited range of hard drives, so if possible, they can maintain further overhead rates and broaden support for various types of hard drives.

Another areas of improvement include pricing and scalability. 

We have worked with Cisco UCS for around six years. Some of the servers are still running.

We are stable right now. We are using 50 users. We use Cisco UCS C240 M5 Rack Server.

There is very little scalability for the cluster. If you need a higher availability, there is a user limitation. So that is the low side.

We have around 5 to 16 customers using this solution. They are mainly in the educational sector. 

Cisco's technical and learning support is better than Dell. Cisco provides a learning platform for technical guidance and free access for deployment engineers within our subscription, unlike Dell, where we have to pay for every enrollment.

The setup process of the UCS is simple. But the one setting it up must know how to use the UCS manager.

The deployment doesn't take a long time. UCS provides two options. One is from the local console. The other one is from the UCS manager.

So, from the UCS manager, we can autopilot to deploy into multiple servers at the same time. It takes around 20 minutes to deploy all the hypervisor solutions again.

The deployment process is very simple. We can get the firmware level and the operating system from the website. So we download it from there. And, using the console or the UCS manager, we can enroll it.

We have a Cisco-certified team responsible for managing the Cisco side.

Our customers don't pay for licenses. As a service provider, we cover the costs. They only pay for the services they use.

The subscription fee is on an annual basis. We always use annual. There are no extra costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Evaluate the price and look for scalability. Cisco's cost has increased post-COVID, so exploring other options is advisable.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten due to its scalability and expansion.

We are using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for governments. They have some departments with applications that run on this solution.

The most valuable features of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are integration and customization.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers can improve by providing customization features to allow us to deploy them on the cloud. For example, we need VMware to allow us to accomplish a cloud deployment.

Other solutions such as HP, Dell, and Samsung, are using VMware at a low cost. However, in Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers we are bound to use the Ninite software.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for approximately three years.

This is a highly stable solution.

I rate the stability of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a ten of ten.

The support from Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is responsive and overall effective.

I rate the support from Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used VMware, Dell, and other Hypervisor solutions.

The initial setup of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers was simple.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

The price of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is high.

I rate the price of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others. However, my management wonders why we choose such a high-priced solution when we need to purchase third-party solutions to have cloud capabilities.

I rate Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers an eight out of ten.

I use the solution for routing. 

The C-series is the most valuable. 

The improvement should be done as per customer requirements. 

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for four years. 

It is a highly stable solution. 

It is a highly scalable solution. Twenty four users are using the solution. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. It's just create a script and then you upload it. The deployment takes two to three hours. 

The solution is moderately priced. 

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

Cisco rack servers are very easy to integrate with other products from different vendors.

Generally, the solution performs well, but some customers have complained about delivery time. So, the main weakness is the lead time.

We provide Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers to our customers. However, the lead time for these servers, as well as for the switches, has been very long since COVID. So some people are looking at other products because of that.

The solution is very reliable and performs well. The customers never had any problems with them.

Scalability is okay. The solution offers good scalability.

I've heard some complaints because Cisco didn't have a dedicated company to manage the accounts. They used to be very vigilant in customer service, but once they were acquired, the customer experience has not been so good, especially regarding technical support.

Neutral

The solution is very easy to deploy.

For a typical deployment, with the right information, it should take about 2-3 weeks. However, if you need to customize the servers or deploy them in a complex environment, it could take longer.

The pricing is expensive. Compared to its competitors, Cisco servers are more expensive. The price of Cisco servers can vary depending on the configuration, the number of servers being purchased, the amount of RAM, and the storage capacity.

We are working with Cisco, Fortinet, Palo Alto, and all the popular options. We work with everything Cisco offers, like switches, routers, firewalls, and email security.

I would recommend them as long as they have the budget for it, but exploring other options is also worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. In terms of the product itself, I don't think they need to add any features. However, they could improve the delivery charge and technical support price.