Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

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.

We are a solution provider and Cisco HyperFlex is one of the products that we propose to our customers. This product is used for hyper-convergence in IT transformation and can be used for very heavy workloads such as VDIs or HAP HANA.

The most valuable feature is that you can manage the whole cluster from the fabric interconnect.

The physical switches are more reliable than the virtual machines.

using a virtual machine to manage the cluster, needs lots of pre-configuration & validation steps, as well may lead to cluster fail in case of the fail / corruption of the VM (unless you manage to have a valid backup to restore, with a valid cluster restoration plan), 

despite the managing of the Cisco Hyperflex, it comes almost preloaded & stand ready for deploying, as well in redundant architecture, which reflect a solid base for managing & reliability deployment. 

They need to make many improvements to this solution but the most important area is the compression. Most customers are concerned with the compression for a specific workload, and then maintaining it. The performance and compression vary depending on the type of workload; for example with SAS HANA, Cisco forces compression and that affects performance very badly. At the least, the customer should have the option to choose what types of workload should be affected by the data reduction functionality.

The second point is that they need to work on the erasure code. Cisco doesn't support erasure code, even over flash. If they fix this then they will only waste 25%. With replication and mirroring, it uses 100% of the allocated capacity. This means that Cisco needs to work on the architecture. I have conducted many PoCs and it is a problem that they need to work on.

Cisco offers a single cache drive cluster, whereas VxRail offers up to four cache disks per drive. When the cache disk fails in Cisco, the whole node fails, and the workload goes down. But when it comes to VxRail, if a cache disk files then only the node fails and the workload remains up and running. This is an area that Cisco needs to work on. Essentially, they have to raise the number of cache disks that can be included in a single node.

We have been working with Cisco HyperFlex for the past four years.

This is a reliable solution

This product is quite scalable.

Our usage of this product may increase but it is up to the customer. For example, when a customer is loyal to Cisco, they will implement HyperFlex. On the other hand, if it's a customer with a hyper-converged infrastructure then they will definitely implement VxRail.

Technical support from Cisco is responsive and depending on the problem, a hardware replacement is offered 24/7, which is good.

I have experience with similar products from other vendors.

HyperFlex is a very good solution, although not compared to Dell EMC VxRail. Both of them have many good features, although VxRail is better and yet, Cisco is more expensive.

If you consider my customers to be a community, 70% of them have VxRail and 30% of them have HyperFlex.

The initial setup is straightforward. The length of deployment depends on the number of channels but for between four and five nodes, it takes approximately two weeks.

This is an expensive solution, although Cisco will offer it free of charge when there is a large networking opportunity that arises. The licensing is perpetual and the only thing that you may need to pay for on a monthly basis is if you're going to use their cloud-based management features. This requires a subscription.

Cisco offers the on-cloud management system for HyperFlex but most of our customers that are using a hyper-converged infrastructure prefer to build their own, private cloud. In most cases, they have this solution installed on-premises.

Cisco HyperFlex is a product that I can recommend, although VxRail is my first choice. Depending on the customer, their environment, and history with Cisco, I will recommend one of these products over the other.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The management feature is the solution's most valuable aspect.

Overall, the solution is pretty good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

We've found the stability to be very good.

The pricing of the solution could be improved. It's a bit too high. We find that most customers can not make it work with their budgets.

When it comes to the virtualization layer, we have issues. We can scale up, and yet we can't add storage.

We need to be able to scale out and not just up. When you want to scale up or scale out, you are quite limited.

It would be ideal to have the flexibility to scale out whereby you are able to do a single type of commodity upgrade. For example, if we could upgrade the memory only, or upgrade the process only or storage only,.

There is a general over-reliance on VMware, the form of the software layer which now includes things like Nutanix. Some customers - especially around Oracle - have a preference to not work around VMware. That's why we need more flexibility to be able to do any event on the top layer.

It would be ideal if we had local support here in Kenya.

I can't recall for how long I've been dealing with the product. It's been a while. 

The stability is quite good on the solution. It's not buggy or glitchy. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is reliable. 

We primarily deal with small and medium-sized companies.

While the solution can scale up, it can't scale out, and this is a problem for us.

Technical support is okay on the computer side. However, when it comes to the virtualization layer, that's where the problem is. I've been having issues. We can only scale up. We cannot scale out. I can't add an additional storage. We're trying to work this through with configurations and we're running into a lot of trouble.

Also, we'd like to have local support in our country. Right now, we are lacking that.

I also work with other vendors, such as Dell.

For small companies and environments full of Cisco I recommend that a company uses Cisco, as the transition is easy as the UCS manager connects well to Hyperflex.  

However, for an organization that doesn't have a clear growth plan, and grows randomly, PowerFlex is better, as it affords more flexibility and it's easier to upgrade.

The initial setup is really easy if you are using Hyperflex money.

I wouldn't describe the initial setup as difficult or complex.

The pricing is high for the solution. The costs need to be adjusted. 

The licensing is okay, however, the harder infrastructure needs to be adjusted.

We are a reseller.

My advice to other organizations considering the solution is to make sure you plan before deployment and put into place a proper plan. The initial pre-project timeline puts into place a proper plan and based on your focus. It will make sure that whatever you put into place meets your requirements both right away and into the future. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight 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.

We primarily use the solution for our customers.

The implementation process is okay.

HyperFlex, compared to other competitors like VxRail or Nutanix, has stability issues.

The utilization needs to be better. It needs more options.  

For HX, we need to install a specific virtual machine on each node as a controller. For VxRail, we don't have to do this since it's a built-in feature on VMware. 

For the solution to work, we need to buy specific switches from Cisco. It's not flexible, actually. I wouldn't recommend using it.

The cost is pretty high.

I've used the product for three or four years. 

I'm also familiar with VxRail and Nutanix. They are working with other platforms, and other techniques. Therefore they are more stable. They also have more storage options. 

It is pretty easy to set up. It's not overly complex. The implementation is simple. 

We can implement the cluster within one hour.

The solution is more expensive since switches are one of the things that add cost to the solution. The service is a little bit more costly as well. They cost more than other vendors. 

We are partners and resellers.

I wouldn't recommend HyperFlex.

If a company has options, I would say they should look at VxRail or Nutanix as the first option.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.