Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

We use this solution as Active-Active and to host some of our applications. Compared to Nutanix, it is not as good. Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is not a matured HCI solution. If something goes wrong with Nutanix, we use Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series, so we at least have half of our systems running. It is helpful as a backup solution.

A lot needs to be improved. Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series does not support the stretch cluster, and the interface is not good. Features are missing, and it does not support VMware Seven.

We have been using this solution for about three years, and I believe we are using version 4.5. It is deployed on-premises.

It is not a stable solution.

We have about 10,000 users. Maintenance is okay, but the hardware failure is too much, and sometimes memory is lost.

The support is okay but unprofessional.

The initial setup was complicated, and we had to struggle a lot. The switches, such as WAN switches, LAN switches, Nexus, and all those areas, are perfect. But when it comes to HCI, it is not a good solution. So we completed deployment with Cisco support.

I rate this solution a four out of ten.

We are one of the biggest cloud providers in Bangladesh, so we use this service and we are relaying the service to the end customer. We have many multinational companies, ODSMs providers, and banks as our customers, so it's pretty good, knowing that we have a kind of highly-loaded workload.

It's a very robust solution. There are a lot of products on the market you can access, but this is an end-to-end compact solution for the end customer. It's good, and it's a high-end type of product. The workload can handle anything and has an extended capacity. 

The problem is that we always have to keep an eye out for new releases to make sure that the version we're running is up-to-date. The way their infrastructure is updated and evaluated, they are always updating their firmware structure. That is the only challenge we are experiencing, but you have to look for the updates all the time, which is a challenge and everyone's very frustrated at this point.

The cloud world is changing every day. It would be good if they added provisions for activities like micro-services and micro-segmentation. 

We have been using this solution for almost two and a half years. 

It isn't stable so far because the problem is that you have to update your version, and then also update your firmware to the latest development. If you're using an old version of any of them, it makes trouble. That is a challenge we are facing, but it is okay. The solution handled an enterprise where they switch the workload and run it every day, so it is stable in that way.

The solution is scalable. We are using so many clusters, including standard clusters, self-encryption device clusters, and accessories. It is definitely a scalable solution. As a service provider, we have over 80 people using the solution.

I have reached out to technical support so many times. The team is definitely excellent. It's clear they want to be the biggest cloud company in the world, so they're very supportive people. They have a lot of knowledge to share, and I'm happy to work with them.

There are a lot of constants and there's a lot to do on the infrastructure and stories part, so there are different segmentations. Integration of the stories part is okay if you have a knowledge of what the stories require. After the stories part, you also need to reach out to the Hyperflex center version for service to the cloud. If you're using EMC or maybe data updates or other things, it's the kind of thing where you need to understand those first.

For the later parts of the integration, you need to understand what you have because it really gets pretty complex. You have to integrate it with the gen network. It gets a little bit complex when there's micro-segmentation, or an application type of thing. You have to share that stuff with a lot of different segments, so I would say the network setup is pretty difficult and complex.

Initially, we had a system integrator. They are from India and they initially helped us and guided us through it. They were here onsite and they worked with us and shared knowledge about how to do stuff and how to get the services. Initially it was definitely a challenge, but after getting the services and workload and testing so we knew what we needed, we moved into application. From that point we were able to do it on our own.

We have a yearly license. 

I would recommend this product, depending on the context. It depends on what kind of services you want to run and provide.

My company decided on this solution because of the stability, sustainability, and strength of the product. Also, they have so much support, and their people are knowledgeable. When you're having a problem, they will help you to find a solution. Whatever problem you are facing, you are able to solve.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

The hyperconverged infrastructure is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution. Within the additional platform and then having the HyperFlex, the new solution of Cisco, it's actually quite advanced already. They are fast with the idea of not using storage and using HCI or hyperconverged infrastructure. Technically, I've been checking everybody's products and they are all very similar. The advantage of Cisco is it can install different platforms of virtualization software. It can install Hyper-V or it can also install VMware, for example - things we are using already and then it can work the IOPS that we provide. That's another thing.

The stability has been great. It's a quality product.

The solution scales extremely well. 

Technical support is fast.

They need to provide lower prices. It is pricey in comparison with other vendors - including Nutanix, or VxRail of EMC. They are quite expensive due to the fabric interconnect, the FI, that they have. The other vendors don't have those fabric interconnects while Cisco requires the fabric interconnect. 

The initial setup can be complex. 

We'd like to see a backup solution included in the product in the future. 

I've been using the solution for two years already.

I have a really high opinion of Cisco since I've been selling Cisco for quite some time and I have deployed it a lot. So far, the stability and the quality are really, really good. I have no issues with the stability and quality of Cisco. 

It's actually one of the HCIs that I consider to have a greater potential for expansion. The scalability of Cisco is better than the others.

Technical support is great They are very fast and responsive. 

In comparison with other solutions, it's quite complex to set up due to the fabric interconnects with it. That said, I'm used to it. However, if you're going to compare it with other setups, and other vendors don't have those things. I understand that Cisco's servers need those for server profiles, and the others don't have those advantages. Still, if we do a direct comparison with other vendors, that would be the disadvantage as it's an additional cost in comparison with the pure network that you would connect with the hyperconverged infrastructure such as Nutanix, PowerFlex, VxRail, or SimpliVity of HP. That's the disadvantage of Cisco.

Only one person is required to handle any maintenance responsibilities.

The solution is quite expensive when compared to other options, although their technology is better. 

You do need to pay a yearly licensing fee. How much depends upon how many are using it. I'm not sure how much in dollars, however, in pesos, it's around, if I'm 3 million to 5 million. Everything is included under on licensing fee. there are no extra costs. 

We use a variety of different versions of the solution. It depends. 

I'd advise new users to study the product. It needs, really, a knowledge of the product. I really highly recommend Cisco due to its stability and scalability, and also the performance of the equipment. It's got great quality. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is its performance.

I have been receiving a memory overflow message every day when I use the solution. 

This memory overflow error is a cosmetic error. Over the last three years, I have been talking with Cisco to remove this error. Cisco and VMware should cross-check and troubleshoot this issue to come to a solution. They should remove it as soon as possible.

I have been using Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series for approximately three years.

The solution is stable. However, we have had a memory overflow error, that has not to be resolved but it is only a cosmetic error. 

The scalability of the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series has been very good for what we are using it for in the current project.

We have approximately 400 users using this solution.

We do not plan to increase usage at least for the next six months.

We have not had a good experience with the support. They were not very helpful with the cosmetic error we were receiving.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Nutanix. I find that Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is better than Nutanix. Cisco products have better performance overall.

I did not face any problems in the implementation.

We had a partner do the implementation of the solution. I was not happy with the partner because they have not resolved the error message we have been receiving from Cisco after months of conversations.

The partner support could improve.

All of our maintenance is handled by our partner.

There is a license required to use this solution.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a seven out of ten.

We deploy these for our customers, we're in the reseller space.

Use cases are typically around data center revolutions, consolidations in virtualization density, and being able to scale both up and out.

On the architectural side of it, there's the single pane of glass. In the hyper-converged, there is that validated design approach of having all of the components which should work together.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is better than most.

The pricing can always be better on everything. 

The interdependencies of each of these functions and the configuration side are something that needs to be carefully architected so that if something isn't working in my memory stick, it doesn't have a cascading waterfall effect through the rest of my operation. The interdependency could be improved so that everything will not be so interrelated.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. 

We've been a partner with Cisco for over 20 years, and, as it pertains to HyperFlex, we probably deployed the first HyperFlex in the Northeast region - and that was probably four years ago. We did it when it first came out.

In terms of stability, it's way more stable than when it first came out. The earlier evolutions of this were like building the plane as we were flying it.

Cisco tech support, as bad as it can be, is better than most.

There's additional complexity around the solution.

In a hyper-converged scenario, the financial outcome is that you need to further align your refresh cycles of your storage, of your compute stack, and of your networking. From the client-side, that can also lead to a little bit of solution lock-in, a slight vendor lock-in.

Before, if I wanted to see maybe if my storage is up, and I'm looking at the time to adopt all-flash SSD or putting NVME in my environment, and updating my either blade centers, or pizza box servers, et cetera, it would all fit together. Even though that there's modularity built into the hyper-converged, there's still a little bit of a tax where you have to overbuy on other resources to provision that you want.

You don't need a huge team to deploy the solution. A deployment team is lightweight. It's two different individuals or maybe three with project management included.

We're a gold partner, one of their leading partners in our area.

Historically, I'm not very much pro-hyper-converge as there's a lot to the market still. What happens is, if it's poorly architected, that if something's screwed up, everything is screwed up. That's the part of the issue with the hyper-converged. You've got it very tightly knit. However, there are still advantages to the separation of failure domains, whether that be your compute, your storage, your memory.

I would take a Cisco Flex approach over a Cisco hyper-converged approach, all day, every day. It's the most widely adopted platform in the world for converged architecture and has a knowledge base that is way larger and has way more experience running. Also, just because you have to update one piece of it doesn't mean you have to update all pieces of it. My honest opinion is to still see what else is in the market to validate your approach to go with an all Cisco solution in the hyper-converged space. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are implementing the solution for Hyper-converged systems.

I find the Hyperflex most valuable. It compares well with Nutanix. 

The minimum for running involves three nodes, which is the number I use for running the patch. The solution is not very good when it comes to a single node. 64 is the maximum number of nodes. 

As I work with Hypervisor or VMware, the solution usually is easy when it comes to monitoring and backup. I rely on backup and monitoring capabilities. I use Veeam, for example, as a backup solution and SolarWinds for my monitoring needs. 

I am a gold partner of Cisco and am entitled to a discounted price. When it comes to customer needs, the licensing price could be better. By comparison, Nutanix is more affordable. The choice of Cisco varies with the needs of the client. 

The solution is extremely stable. I work in Hyperflex. The customer can simply send. 

The solution is extendable and flexible for administrative purposes. I will normally deploy and cluster the containment in six nodes, with another in four, in three and in five. 

Overall, the solution is extremely easy, flexible and secure. 

Technical support is okay, although I have never opened a ticket with them. 

The initial setup and deployment of the solution is extremely easy. All that must be done is to prepare the infrastructure and IP, at which point it can be deployed with ease. 

There are five or six customers who make use of the solution. 

Hyperflex developed its first platform in 2015, while Simplivity and Nutanix did so in 2009. 

The solution centralizes everything in a single IP. It is extremely simple, secure and good for deployment. 

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series as a six out of ten. 

HyperFlex is a hyper-converged infrastructure system that is a cluster of servers that provide compute and storage at the same time. Most other networking systems provide either computation separately from storage and networking. However, HyperFlex is a combined system that provides compute, networking, and storage in the same solution. That is, it gives you a single point of management for everything instead of separately for different components.

We've adopted Hyperflex as the new Virtualization solution for our network. all new workloads will be created on Hyperflex, and all existing workloads will be migrated to Hyperflex over the next few years.

The product makes management much easier since there's a single pane of glass to use to monitor, manage and upgrade the system. 

You can achieve similar performance for your system by buying separate components, however, HyperFlex allows you to achieve the same performance using one system. It's basically one integrated system. That's the most powerful aspect of it. 

The solution is quite stable.

The scalability of the product is quite good overall - as long as you plan correctly from the outset.

A disadvantage is the higher costs involved in using this product. If it were more affordable, it would be easier to recommend and HCI adoption rate would increase. Unlike other options, you need to pay a subscription to Cisco yearly instead of paying for the hardware outright, which makes it more expensive in the long run.

The initial setup could be easier. Right now, it's a bit difficult. 

We've used the solution over the last 12 months.

It's been stable since we set it up. It's been very stable and providing good service. 

We are considering expansion at the moment. The solution is easily scalable if it is planned correctly from the beginning. 

Our previous generation is going to end support in two years. We're planning to migrate our whole virtualization infrastructure from the old generation solution to the Cisco solution. Basically, within one or two years, we'll be moving all our instrumentation and all our workloads will be moving to this solution.

A minimum of three servers is needed. If these servers have good specifications from the beginning, it's as easy as adding another node. You can expand the solution with more and more nodes. That said, if the node isn't configured properly in the amount of CPU, RAM, and storage, then when you try to expand, you must either expand with more than one node to add more and more scalability, or you must upgrade the existing nodes.

HyperFlex is hosting our financial systems. In terms of users, for management, it's just the ITT and we're managing the solution. However, if you consider people who are using the servers as infrastructure, then you can say more than 50 people technically are on the solution. Basically, the whole company uses the PBX system as an exchange for phone calls, for example.

We haven't reached out to Cisco in terms of needing technical support. We've reached out for other reasons, however,  and they were very quick to respond. For this solution, in particular, we've been working with Cisco's partners  - and since our partner provides good support, then we haven't needed to reach out to Cisco directly.

We used to have a non-converged solution before Hyperflex that had separate components, however, when we chose to go with a hyper-converged solution for our network, we chose HyperFlex.

The initial setup is not exactly straightforward or simple. It's a bit difficult, a bit complex. 

Luckily, we had the support of the Cisco partner to install and integrate the solution. However, it would have been much easier if we could do it in a shorter time. 

It is a complicated process for integration and it takes time. It can take several hours to install and configure the solution. If the setup process was faster, it could have been done in a shorter time. Basically, it took about two or three days to finish the whole setup. From unpacking to going online, it took us a few days. While the installation is a part of the process, the most time-consuming point was the initial setup.

We had a Cisco partner that assisted us in the initial implementation. 

The solution comes at a higher cost than if you had separate integrations grouped together.

There are licenses included with the hardware, and then there are annual subscriptions that you need to pay. You need to pay an annual subscription service to Cisco for operating the solution. There are other solutions that are purely hardware and whatever licenses you pay, you pay one time along with the purchase, or if you need to expand. This solution has an annual subscription payment.

We are customers and end-users.

The HyperFlex is on-premise the hardware infrastructure. You can set it up with VMware ESXi or with Microsoft Hyper-V. We chose to go with VMware ESXi. It was a requirement of the other systems that we depended on. We could have gone with Hyper-V, however, VMware turned out to be the right solution. The system is hardware and it's compatible with both software solutions or hypervisor solutions. We chose VMware ESXi and turned out to be a better solution than Hyper-V.

I would recommend the product to other users, as long as it's affordable for the company. The cost is high. It is about 150% more costly than a comparable older generation solution. However, if you can afford it, then by all means go for it. 

I'd also advise new users to choose a higher-end specification for the servers. This is also important. That would make extending it easier. For example, the fiber interconnected component the solution sells is like a switch. It's sold per port. If you buy exactly what you need now, you have to replace the hardware when you want to expand. Therefore, plan for the needs of the future, not the present.

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

Our primary goal is to have a solution that enables us to have 100% uptime between two sites. That's why we're using HyperFlex. It has a very critical application. We are a government organization with around 15,000 users although that can go up to 25,000 in peak times. I'm an infrastructure integration analyst.

I like the stretch cluster, it's a feature that allows us to warranty a service for the customer that has to be 100% uptime. That aside, the solution also has flexibility, scalability, performance and availability. The main objective for us is DRA, Disaster Recovery Avoidance. We don't want to go into disaster recovery so our aim is for 100% avoidance. The hardware might not be perfect but Cisco is very proactive with their support. 

There are sometimes issues with memory failure. I'd also like to be notified when new documentation comes out, it would make things easier. I think the cost is an issue given that it's so much cheaper to use cloud based solutions these days. I don't know whether HyperFlex can compete with that. There can sometimes be issues if you change your mind on something and want to move things around. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

It's a stable solution. 

This is a scalable product. 

Every time I have a problem I contact the HyperFlex team and they solve it. 

Implementation requires having a roadmap and steps in place. If you have that, it's pretty straightforward because you know exactly where you need to input your specific information from your own environment. Maintenance is not very demanding, we have five people who can deal with that, but it wouldn't take up more than 10% of their time on any one day. Once it's up and running, it's stable. 

We are evaluating VMware Hybrid Solution and HPE SV signatures. HPE has very good hardware, but they don't have a good software defined solution. There are so many screens and sometimes it's a burden for us on the tech side. 

I think any business could use HyperFlex, it's a good solution for big or small business.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We have a remote site. We are developing this site so that we can locally access the VMware environment with the least network bandwidth. We have deployed the ESXi host virtual edition.

It is a complete package. For any kind of on-premises hyper-converged solution, we usually have to separate networks, but Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is a complete solution. It has its own network and storage. The storage part is the most valuable feature.

Its price could be better.

I have been using Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series for the last one and a half years.

It is stable. There are no issues.

We have not contacted them regarding Cisco HyperFlex because the setup was straightforward. We have a team in the USA, and they were mostly dealing with any kind of sales-related queries, but for technical support, we have not encountered any problem to engage them.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment took around two hours.

Its price is rather fair when compared with other solutions like VxRail, vSAN, and HPE SimpliVity. We got a fair amount of discount from Cisco for Cisco HyperFlex.

It is cost-effective. We have renewed storage till next year, and we have already paid the vendor. When we talk about HyperFlex or any HCI solution, storage is the part where we can reduce a lot of costs. At the current moment, we are already using NetApp storage, which did not allow us to go for a full Cisco HyperFlex setup. We are planning to go to a larger scale next year. Then we will be able to see how cost-effective it really is for us.

I would encourage people to go with this solution. I would rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a seven out of ten because we have not tested all the features so far.

We are using this solution for our VDI. This is used to deliver our EMR and other medical and clinical applications to our residents and providers throughout the medical center.

One of the big benefits of using this solution is security. It allows us to authorize our residents to come in using their own personal devices to access any of our clinical applications and ensure that the PHI is secure and protected.

PHI is a major concern for us. Patient safety, patient security, and our data protection are the number one priorities for a lot of our solutions.

The most valuable feature for us was the time to delivery. We had a short window of about three months to implement because we had in incoming residence group of about a thousand users that they wanted us to have VDI up and running for. We were told about it in March by our CIO, and by June 1st it was up and running.

One of the challenges we have with Cisco, in general, is the multiple management platforms for the UCS, and I would like to see it all under one umbrella. If we could have just a single pane of glass, where everything can be managed through that one app, rather than have multiple apps, it would be great. There are three apps that we currently have to integrate with.

I would like to see them broaden their processor options. We've had some challenges with Intel, and I'd like to see them look at other potential CPU providers.

Stability has been excellent for us. We've been up and running on it for about eighteen months now, and we're in the process of expanding. We have a goal to have about six thousand users up and running by the end of this year.

The scalability of this solution has been excellent. We've been able to add additional HyperFlex units on the fly, and it's been pretty seamless.

So far, technical support has been very good. We've had a couple of challenges with some of the firmware updates we've had to do, and SMARTnet has been excellent at helping us to get through those.

Prior to this, we were using Cisco B200 Blade Servers for our normal VMR infrastructure, and we when we wanted to implement VDI we wanted to go hyper-convergence. 

The simplicity of the initial setup is one of the reasons why we picked this product. It is almost plug-and-play. It allowed us to install our first cluster of ten HyperFlex units, in each of our data centers, and within a couple of days, it was up and running. It was pretty straightforward.

We worked with Cisco and our reseller for evaluating the product, but when it came to the implementation, my team was able to do it on their own.

I do not have a good handle on the ROI, except to give an example from our implementation. Had we been required to buy laptops for all of the incoming residents, at say $2,000 per student, then we're talking $200,000. This is something that we didn't have to spend because we could deliver a VDI solution that lets them use their own personal device.

One of the challenges we have with HyperFlex is that they have a subscription fee for the operating system that runs on it, and if I remember correctly, it costs approximately $15,000 USD per month.

We looked at everybody including Dell, HP, Cisco, and Nutanix. As we ferried through them we were much more comfortable with the Cisco product line, and that's why we ended up choosing it. Their technical support is very good, they had a great implementation for their HyperFlex, and we already had knowledge and experience working with the Cisco Server Blades. Cisco also had a competitive price point.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to have an understanding of the ROI. It is easy to jump in and see great technology, but you need to know what the long term cost is. One thing that we learned when we went into hyper-converged technology is the licensing costs that come with it. This is a yearly thing that you have to account for.

Overall, this solution was very easy for us to implement. Some of the challenges we're having are related to the management platform and the fact that we have to deal with multiple platforms at the moment. Once this is all consolidated, I would be happy to give a rating of ten.

Today, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.