Aruba Switches Reviews

We primarily use the solution for extra switches on campuses and consecutive exchange of existing access switches. 

The zero-touch provisioning made it possible for electricians to install and wire the switches that allows for the continuation with the zero touch provisioning mechanism afterward. It has really helped us to save our manpower within the network support group.

The solution's most valuable aspect is that it integrates with ClearPass, which allows us to use the same management for wireless LAN and wired LAN. 

The written documentation, all the available documentation, is often a little bit hard to find. The solution lacks documentation of recent features. We have access directly to Aruba, Germany, so they are always helpful, but if you start, for instance, with something a little bit more complex like zero-touch provisioning, that would require a more comprehensive written piece. 

The available REST API is invaluable for elegant integration with the core and distribution network.  

There are some new multicast features coming up, but they are just in the process of preparation by IEEE, and I would like to see them as soon as possible.

The solution's stability is really great. We found it very solid. 

The scalability of the solution is good. With the management of ClearPass, it's great. We've been using the feature of building stacks with it, and its really, really easy to handle a large scale environment.

Technical support has been great. Together with the consultant, we set up a regular phone call with Aruba to discuss the issues surrounding setting up the whole system. They always came up with quick solutions, called us back and they've been really, really helpful overall.

We previously used Brocade. The switches portion of the organization was bought by Extreme Networks. The company broke down, which is why we had to switch. The hardware of Brocade was brilliant, but at some point, the development and the stability of firmware lacked, since developers may have moved on before the company broke down.

The setup is mostly straightforward. Deployment, together with the WiFi, took about a month. We had three people on our side assisting with the implementation and have three people currently handling maintenance.

We did the initial set up with the help of a service provider of Aruba. We wrote templates and did the first template with the service provider, who was experienced and was really helpful.

With their assistance, the experience was optimal. We had been really late with our decision to purchase Aruba and we, with the help of the consultants, have since been able to bring up the whole system in time so that the existing schedule for opening the hospital was never endangered. 

We just had all the licenses for five years included in the bidding process. Since the competitive nature of the resulting contract, our actual costs might not reflect the standard market prices. Due to the visibilityof our project, Aruba has been generous with the included amount of licenses, which will serve us for years to come.

As a public hospital we are obliged to implement a public bidding process. We had been in discussions with many companies, including, for example, Cisco. 

In the end, it came down to financial issues. Once you have your requirements fixed, every Vendor has the chance to give you a proper offer through ist sales channel. With all the requirements, including for example common management of wired and wireless access, WLAN integrated Bluetooth capabilities  Cisco failed to meet the offer of Aruba.

We've been implementing, with the help of Aruba, with zero-touch provisioning in a newly opened hospital. Roughly 450 switches have been put into operation using zero-touch provisioning (ZTP). It was challenging;  even Aruba probably hadn't done such a large scale project before using ZTP.

In terms of advice, I'd say if you are entering the next stage of switch hardware, of network hardware, just have a look at Aruba. It's really, really helpful having an open API to use Python or other script languages to modify configurations and to automate exchange of state changes with neighbouring structures.

We try to keep as close as possible to standards. There are some areas where standards aren't available, for instance stacking of network Access switches, whre no vendor-independent standards is existing yet. So look at the whole package including the switch hardware, the licenses, the license for management and bear in mind the transceivers. 

When using Aruba switches, stick with the automation tools, don't let yourself be seduced into going back to manual configuration.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. They would be perfect, but there's a noise once they are on under heavy load in a warm environment. It might be the case that they are not usable for installations where the loudness damping between the installation room and office is not sufficient.

The primary use case of this solution is for Network connection and centralized monitoring and troubleshooting.

The switching configuration is very simple and not as complicated as Cisco. It's easy to do and the deployment is very quick.

When it comes to RMA, the replacement of Aruba parts is very good, and they are very prompt.

There is a limited lifetime warranty with the switches, so if we have any problems, the switch is replaced very quickly. As an example, if I call in the morning, by tomorrow I will receive a box with the replacement.

Visibility and controls need to be improved. When I compare the Aruba switch with Meraki, Meraki has more visibility and more controls.

HPE Aruba has not done any development and research on the SD LAN. They may have another solution for the SD LAN.

Aruba should have SD LAN features to provide more visibility on the network and to be able to control things like the traffic shifting or for voice or data. Currently, Aruba does not have this capability.

It may be there, but it's tedious.

In the next release or the very near future, I think that it is very important to simplify the dashboard and features similar to Meraki. Meraki has a good dashboard and the way they are presenting the information is very useful.

I am forced to consider changing products because other solutions have a better dashboard and a user-friendly interface. Other solutions also have better control and visibility.

This solution is quite stable. To date, we have not had any complaints.

We have our HP IMC (Intelligence Management Center), which is a centralized management control center where I can monitor all of the switches. I can monitor the health of the network appliances, and the CPUs main process. Everything.

This solution is scalable.

We have not had to contact technical support. We handle the issues with our in-house resources.

I have experience with Cisco Meraki switches.

The initial setup is very easy.

The implementation and configuration are not that difficult.

If you have ten to fifteen switches it can take a day. You have to stack it, then put them all together, complete the configuration, the hardening, and the testing, that is a complete full day, eight hours.

I would recommend this product.

I would rate this product a seven out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we supply to our customers. We have deployed several different models.

This solution is suitable for SME and SMB, mainly in the hospitality industry.

This solution is easy to use.

We have issues with the stability of this product.

The firmware in this solution has a lot of bugs that become noticeable when you have complex implementations.

One of the issues with Aruba switches has to do with part numbers. For example, in the 9230F series, there are a lot of part numbers with lots of interface names that make the user confused as to which one he can use for the future. Some switches have only a 1Gbs uplink while others have only a 10Gbs uplink, and there are no clear details which one has which interface. The difference comes when you look at the pricing. Having less confusing part numbers would be an improvement.

I have found that the chassis-based switches are scalable but the standard modular switches are not.

In my country, they do not have a strong technical support team. However, I was satisfied with the support.

For basic deployments, the initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

I prefer the ICX switches from Ruckus over this solution.

We supply both Ruckus and Aruba solutions to our customers, but regarding stability, future upgrades, and scalability, we prefer Ruckus over Aruba. We have deployed Ruckus with fewer headaches after finalizing the deployments. I open perhaps five cases in a year with Ruckus and I can open ten tickets or ten cases with Aruba.

We prefer Ruckus solutions over Aruba, whether they are wired or wireless.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We have the switches on-premises but we also use the private cloud. 

I've got two different remote offices and after deploying Aruba I can manage the network without any problems because it's publicly available. I can be anywhere and still see the network traffic. I can see the network boards and I can do configuration changes to the switches as long as I have a secured account with Aruba Network.

The cloud configuration is the most valuable feature of this solution. Watching in the cloud, propagating the actual devices themselves and the management of devices that are remote is valuable.

In the next release, I would like to see network access control on the switches themselves. I would like to see security functionalities when it comes to monitoring the bit of the wireless section of the switches.

It is very stable compared to what I was previously using.

Scalability is one of the reasons why I went for Aruba. It seems to be one of the top vendors in providing cloud solutions and quite stable when it comes to upscaling and improving the existing environment. 

We have around 250 users. We require two to three staff members for the maintenance. 

We turn to our integrator for support. 

We switched from our previous solution because we wanted to have a robust level grade of equipment.

The level of complexity of the setup is relative to your environment. Deployment took about a month and a half. If we had to include the design stage and other things then it was probably about two to four months in total.

We used a local integrator for the deployment. We had a positive experience with them.

Licensing costs are on a yearly basis.

We also evaluated Cisco Meraki. I did not choose Meraki because of the licensing model. If for some reason you don't renew the subscription, you lose the network and the configuration. With Aruba it's a different story. If you stop your support, you still own your own network so that was one of the major differences.

My advice to someone considering this solution is to play it out before and choose whoever has the better solution.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

Not a ten out of ten because there were some major issues like configuration conflicts and by the time we got to solve them, it was a bit of a nightmare until we got it up and running. But there will always be some teething problems. There were problems while implementing until we sorted things out and until it started stabilizing itself. It was either a question of the switch temporarily disconnecting from the internet so it couldn't connect to Aruba Central for the configuration. You can do a configuration but it is accepted as a configuration and it doesn't tell you, for example, what a particular error or something like that is.

We used the product for distribution.

The UI could improve, where menus and features or functions could be moved a bit, so it's better for us. For example, the one dealing with uplinks could be grouped into a dropdown or something like that.

I've used Aruba switches for about five years.

I rate the stability of Aruba switches an eight out of ten.

The product is scalable. Seven people in my company are working with Aruba switches.

The initial setup is not complex. It could take up to two hours to set up VLANs or different work groups, but it depends.

We implemented the solution in-house. We have 11 staff members deploying and maintaining the product.

The price is higher than other brands, so I recommend the product to enterprises.

I rate Aruba switches an eight out of ten and recommend the product to other users.

We primarily use the solution for switches. 

It's a stable switch.

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is quite good. It's fast and reliable. 

The software materials could be improved. 

We've been using the solution for a while. 

The stability is quite good. We haven't had an issue with it. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It even works well for enterprise-level organizations. 

It's quite scalable. It's more scalable than many switches. 

The solution offers very fast support. We are quite satisfied with the level of services we get. 

We are an Aruba partner. We tend to recommend this solution to our customers. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We are quite satisfied with its capabilities. 

I am using Aruba Switches in hospitals, educational institutions, and government networks.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Switches is its performance.

There is a long delay in receiving Aruba Switches when ordered. There should not be a long delay in receiving the solution. Additionally, there should be a lifetime warranty to compete with other solutions.

I have been using Aruba Switches for approximately 20 years.

Aruba Switches are highly scalable.

We have approximately 4,000 people using this solution.

We do not scale the solution because after five years the technology is old and needs to be updated.

When I contact support, such as through email, it takes a long time to receive a response.

The installation of Aruba Switches is not difficult. The implementation took me two hours.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

There is a license to use the solution.

I rate Aruba Switches a ten out of ten.