Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

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.

• Customer POC
• Client VMware environment testing.

Easy to deploy and easy management for compute resources in collaboration with VMWare.

They have multiple storages connected with their environment, but the HX storage deduplication and compression feature is the best for the environment.

Single console management (like Hyperflex and FIs management).

I mean to say that, we need to log in 2 console one for vcenter and another for Hyperflex manager, this should be on same console page either hyperfex manager settings and monitoring in vcenter or vcenter can be managed by hyperflex console too.

100 / 100

Best from other competitor. (i believe )

i have face some issue during configuration and have support from Ciso TAC and thay have provide the best support with in time period.

i have configured Dell VXrail and i feel its little bit difficult yo configure then Cisco hyperflex. but the main advantage of VXrail is we dont need existing vcenter, it has its own vcenter cluster by default.

its inital setup is straightforward and easy, just need to understand the Ciso FIs configuration, one who understand that its easy for him.

i am working as a System Engineer for a vendor (IBL-Unisys Pvt Ltd) so i can surely say that we have experts in our organisation. :-) 

initial it cost much but it will pay back with its scalability feature and performance.

in my opinion, i recommend Cisco hyperflex.  

Dell VXRail, its good too but i like Cisco hyperflex because of its dedup and compression feature.

Cisco-HX-Data-Platform-Installer should contain its own ESXi and VCenter installation during setup, so it can be fit in any organization where no virtual environment is available.

I'm a solution architect and I use it to help my clients to achieve better performance in VDI solutions, in clusters, in database consolidation. The solution addresses these kinds of scenarios.

We have a large e-commerce client in Brazil. The company name is Sinova. This company has a lot of e-commerce portals. Every Black Friday in Brazil, before the HyperFlex implementation, the site would go down. The portals didn't have the performance ability to achieve the goals. After the implementation of Cisco HyperFlex, we added a lot of performance to these portals. We no longer have problems when high demand occurs.

Every year, we add one or two nodes to Sinova's web services clusters. The client uses the servers to support web servers for e-commerce.

I love the Cisco design, the visual interface to manage and use the platform. I love this kind of visual.

It is a great platform because it's easy to use. It's easy to put a business inside this box. It's so practical.

Cisco has to continue improve the management tools to provide a better command line interface with more functions. That would be better for administration.

The stability is very good. I have never seen problems with the clusters or any component of the solution. It's very stable.

In terms of scalability, it is the best among all the competitors in the data center-hyperconverged world. We can add nodes to improve the compute of a cluster. We can add nodes to increase storage. We can grow a cluster up to 32 nodes.

The biggest that I have been involved in implementing was five nodes.

The initial setup depends on the business context. All the implementations that I participate in are a little bit complex. It's hard to integrate the platform with the client's data center network. The clients don't have the correct view for best implementing this solution. We need to help them understand, to provide the prerequisites. This is a little bit complex.

A deployment takes between three days and a week. A week is a good amount of time to understand, to implement it, to document it, and to help the clients understand it.

Our implementation strategy first requires us to write a good summary of the client's requirements so they will be using HyperFlex correctly. We need to understand the requirements. With this site survey, we can design the environment.

For a standard size of clusters with three nodes, two analysts is more than enough to implement the solution. After it's deployed and configured, one good analyst is needed to maintain it.

This kind of solution adds a lot of value because it helps the IT department to align with the business' view. We can participate, we can add value to the business because we do implementations faster and we can add compute and storage, many kinds of variables to the environment, very quickly and easily.

Here in Brazil, our point of view about the cost to implement or buy this kind of solution is that it is very expensive. It's very hard for almost all companies to buy even the small version of this solution. For me, this is the most negative point of the Cisco solution: the price and the licensing costs.

I have knowledge of VxRail from Dell EMC. I have also read about solutions from Hitachi and Super Micro. I haven't used them though.

To me, the key difference for me between the Dell infrastructure and Cisco infrastructure is that Cisco is more integrated. The hardware and software work the way I want them to.

Collect all the information about the environment to determine the prerequisites, understand the business, and understand the value of infrastructure solutions. 

We are a small partner. We have four clients right now that use the Cisco HyperFlex solution.

I would rate HyperFlex at ten out of ten.

We are using HyperFlex for heavy workloads and virtual machines which are on a separate network.

• Past deployments
• The possibility to share the workload. We have many applications which have need of workloads only a few times in a month, so we share HyperFlex with them.
• The product works quickly.

We are working with a lot of different technologies and trying to manage them with one tool. The API could be improved for better integration with other systems. For example, the integration to VMware could be better.

We haven't had any downtime. It is absolutely stable.

The scalability is good. We use the nodes that we bought, and they have really scaled out.

Cisco technical support often makes things too complicated. We have easy problems, but they want to WebEx and constantly testing. In the end, we have to exchange a disk and everything is okay. In the beginning, we said the disk is defect, but they want us to test and retest, before acknowledging the disk is defect and we can exchange it. That is a problem for me.

We worked for years with HPE services. We didn't see that they developed, so we looked for other vendors. In the end, we decided on Cisco and are now testing some Cisco technologies. The main technology for us is UCS. HyperFlex was an idea which came from our account manager. I said, "Okay, we can test it." We have a use case. Now, we are working with it.

From day one, it worked. The initial setup was okay.

Cisco helped us to deploy and integrate. Our experience with them was fine.

We are testing it on the slowest workloads. We think by sharing the hardware with several applications that we can save money.

We considered all the vendors. In the end, Cisco checked all the boxes.

At the moment, Cisco is a good vendor, as far as networking solutions. I connect the servers to the network, and the compatibility is good.

We haven't tested the new container functionality. I hope it's good, because this is very important for us.

We have been using this product for a while. We wanted to use our current equipment and have been very excited with the results of our projects. 

It provides good security.

We did not have stability issues until now.

We are trying to determine the product's scalability now as we are doing a new proof of concept with new equipment/products.

We haven't had any issues with the technical support. We have had good cooperation with our Cisco partners.

Two or three years ago, it was something that my colleagues proposed to me as a very good program in order to provide an overall solution. All of our equipment was based in Cisco technology, so we didn't have to make any changes.

The initial setup was straightforward. With our partners and the consultancy that we had, we knew what we wanted to do. Therefore, we didn't have any problems with the installation and parametrization.

We used Space Hellas S.A., which is a company from Greece and a Cisco partner, for the implementation. We have a very good relationship with them.

We have seen ROI from this product.

I would like the pricing to be cheaper.

We did not consider any other vendors beside Cisco because all our equipment is Cisco. The compatibility of staying with Cisco is relevant.

It is a very good solution. Find a good consultant and vendor to implement it before purchasing the software and equipment.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is essential to our vSAN solution; it's integrated.

I find the usability very valuable.

You have to get the same servers with the same storage; they need to be identical. However, in vSAN or in VMware we don't have to do that. We can just add storage and manage it in the same server.

In the next release, I would like to see more integration with VMware. I would also like to see more automation with other Cisco products so that we could have one dashboard for all Cisco products.

We've been using Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series this year.

The scalability of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is good.

We currently have 1,000 to, maybe, 10,000 users.

I have found the technical support to be very good.

The initial setup is straightforward. I think it took two to three hours maximum to set up.

We have two engineers and one manager for deployment and maintenance.

We used a system integrator consultant for the implementation.

There is no additional licensing cost other than the cost for each part.

I recommend Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series and would rate it at nine on a scale from one to 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.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is storage that is integrated with the stack as a standalone mobile unit. There is less infrastructure required. 

We have better computing power, better uptime, and easier management of the infrastructure due to it being a single unit.

I would like to see more flexibility in the storage.

If you have experience with Cisco, or you have experience with the HyperFlex HX itself, then it's a lot easier. If you do deployment on your own, there's a pretty steep learning curve.

Cisco technical support is very skilled. From what I've had to access, there were quick responses and the necessary escalation.

We were approached by Cisco originally to try out the HyperFlex HX. They installed a very small deployment of it and we grew from that.

The age of our equipment dictated that we have to upgrade. It was becoming end-of-life. That's what precipitated the move originally.

The setup was neutral since I was just learning. It was a little complex, but once I understood the purpose of the profiles and the templates, it became a lot clearer and easier. I would suggest getting contract services involved to help with the initial setup of the product. The setup time to figure it out yourself, especially if you are brand new to it, is extensive.

We used a professional integrator.

I can't quantify, but it seems to have a very good return on investment. We kept the equipment for a long time and it's worked flawlessly for us.

Our licensing is hybrid. We have all of our applications for billing and outage management through this.

Something else that we used before was the IBM BladeCenter. It was fine, but it was not as flexible. We couldn't deploy it and expand as easily as the Cisco HyperFlex HX.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco HyperFlex HX with an eight out of ten at this point. Only because I'm not as versed to it as I could be.

The initial setup of profiles and templates could be improved. Maybe some end profiles that you can use based on your type of deployment would be good, i.e. instead of having to go through and configure every portion of the template.