Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

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.

I use HyperFlex for high-performance infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is full integration with Cisco API and UCS, which means you can have complete networking and storage from Cisco.

HyperFlex could be improved by reducing the minimum number of nodes supported from three to two. In the next release, Cisco should include full integration with other virtualization vendors like Nutanix, the same way they do with VMware.

I've been using HyperFlex for a year.

HyperFlex is very stable because it has complete solutions for networking and computing from Cisco.

HyperFlex is very scalable because you can scale up by increasing the number of nodes and scale out by increasing the number of discs in the storage.

Most of Cisco's products come with warrants and SmartNet, so if you have an issue, the customer interface allows you to rate it, and the technical team will respond based on the critical level.

Positive

The setup is very easy, I'd rate it five out of five.

HyperFlex is relatively expensive, but you get good value for money.

I would give HyperFlex a rating of nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for stretched cluster uses when the customer has multiple data centers and he won't achieve the highest level of availability. He can stretch the workload between different data centers giving him more availability when one of these data centers fails and the workload can be migrated and replicated to the other data centers. From an infrastructure level you achieve the highest availability. I am talking about 100% availability from a storage perspective.

We are providing this solution for the customer or converting the customer from a traditional environment to a hyper-converged environment which consolidates all management and support on a single port. This is the main benefit of using the hyper-converged versus the traditional.

The stretching cluster features have the highest delivery of availability from a  storage perspective. You gain all the features related to or coming from virtualization because it is based on a virtualized environment. We already implemented VMware over hyper-convergence. We took all the features coming from the virtualized or VMware environment, such as high availability, DRS and sanity rules and we can segregate the workload between two data centers using rules to maintain the workload even if one of data centers fails.

In terms of what could be improved, Cisco HyperFlex should decrease the amount of memory needed from the Controller VM that controls the physical discs. They control the discs by using the virtual VM over every ESXi host and the VM consumes memory and consumes more hardware resources. They have to improve that by decreasing the amount of required memory and CPUs to control this disc on the server. 

From a technology perspective there is no problem. The main issue is cost-wise. Cisco costs more than its competitors.

As for what I would like to see in the next release, Cisco already has a solution, but in a different profile called the CWOM, Cisco Workload Optimization Manager, and Cisco Intersight. This solution manages and optimizes workloads on the infrastructure and integrates them with the monitoring solution and gives insights and recommendations for the customers. I think it is included on solutions such as the VxRail which has the vROps, vRealize Operations Manager. Cisco did not include this on this solution, but in a separate solution. They have to have a logs server to collect all logs and give insights from all hardware. This is included in the Cisco Intersight but it is not included in the hyper-converged infrastructure solution.

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

I am running it now on an implementation project for hyper-converged with a HyperFlex stretched cluster. A solution from hyper-converged, but not such a standard implementation - it is stretched between different sites.

No problem with stability. I have a customer and I have not spoken to him since the last upgrade one year ago. He didn't face any problem.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is scalable.

I think you need one or two people maximum to operate it. They must have different technology experience from different perspectives because they deal with the virtual storage and the servers, but its concept is coming from computing and virtualization. Someone should have the knowledge of all the verticals.

Cisco support is great. But when we ask about something, they reply with the standard schema, which makes me confused. Let's say I have a problem with a customer who has a problem in their Dell or Cisco servers and I open a ticket for it. Support replies please check, check, check, check. I know! I checked all this already. I know I have to check this before calling you. This takes time. We have to go directly to our customer and try to solve the problem. Maybe sometimes our customer is solving the problem. I don't like to give them advice that is only go and check one, two, three.

The initial setup was straightforward. The advanced solution was straightforward from an implementation perspective.

There was no problem with implementation. It has improved since past versions which had many errors and many bugs.

If our pre-requisites are ready, deployment and implementation take two days maximum.

My advice to anyone considering Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is that they have to study what the hyper-converged solution is and why they are going into hyper-convergence. Why not use the traditional way? This is the first thing. If they understand the concept, they can very easily go through the implementation because the hyper-converged solution is based on automatic implementation. We have a virtual machine capable of implementing the solution, but in the background there are many automated tasks running. If you don't know what is running in the background you didn't understand anything.

You have to understand and then go through the automated implementation related to hyper-converged. Any new solution allows you to implement everything automatically, you don't need to implement different components and then integrate them with each other. You have to configure single machine. You can implement everything from that single machine.

You have to understand why you are going to hyper-converge before you go to the implementation.

You can dig into it, but you will not understand anything. If you're facing any issue, you can't solve the problem. So when you're implementing for other companies, Cisco or Dell or whatever, they are asking about the pre-requisites. You have to have these pre-requisites before going into the implementation because when you have more information relative to the customer side or the requirements and the pre-requisites, the implementation is straightforward. But if you lack all the pre-requisites you will face many problems and you will not be able to define where they are coming from.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a nine.

We have hosted a few use cases. Windows developed an application that we hosted in the production environment and all SQL database servers. After that, we used HyperFlex HCI to host DNS and DCP servers as well as various IT-related production servers. 

HyperFlex's formatting features are easy to use.  It's a one-click operation. From an administrative perspective, the whole interface is seamless.

In the next release, Cisco should add more integration and management capabilities as well as some tweaks to the dashboard that make it more user-friendly. They could also add support for multiple hypervisors.

Performance-wise, everything is good. So far, we haven't had any issues. There has been no downtime at all.

For scalability, I would rate HyperFlex nine out of 10.

We've received good support throughout the implementation and afterward.

HyperFlex setup is very easy.

We used help from vendor support during the setup.

HyperFlex is a little pricey. 

Overall, I rate HyperFlex eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others. It's a good product.

There should be the opportunity to create more than one div group. The solution has only a gigabyte boot device, boot drive of only 240 gigabytes, but 480 would be better. 

It is possible to create two or more div groups, for example: having two test drives and five capacity drives for each div group. 

I am not in a position to discuss the solution's stability, as I do not work too closely with Hyperflex.

I am not in a position to discuss technical support, as I do not work too closely with Hyperflex.

The price of the solution is good, especially when it comes to complex network solutions, such as UCS and Connect.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series as an eight 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.

I have many clients using this solution for a number of reasons, such as unified communications and collaboration.

There could be an increase in performance to improve the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The solution is reliable.

We have had no problems with the scalability of the solution.

The technical support has been very good for this solution.

I would rate the installation of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series an eight out of ten. However, it can be complex. 

We are on an annual subscription and the price is fair.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-SeriesRev an eight 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.