Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

We use it in junction with unified communication solutions. It provides great flexibility for our customers to expand the solution. Also, the ease of management is why they use HyperFlex.

We have some large customer managing some large hospitals in Denmark and it's very easy to make changes and expand with solutions around the hospitals. The management of the system can be done in a centralized way which has been a benefit for us. 

Most of our users are Cisco customers, so it fits in within the suites we use. Primarily for me, as a solution architect, it's the technology and architecture that is the most valuable. I know from my technical colleagues that it's easy to use and for the customer, the uptime is the most valuable asset. It's running and has low failure which is why we use it.

We are moving further out with more cloud solutions, so we need HyperFlex to be more cloud-connected. They should develop more connection to Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud because our customers use their services and are moving in that direction.

We've had some downtime, but it's 99.5% stable. They can trust it. Hospitals are 24/7 driven, so we need to have a high uptime which is why we use HyperFlex.

It's a very scalable product because they have about 150 commercial services, so the scalability is very high, and the uptime is great. 

We use technical support if we have any issues or trouble with it. Cisco is always awesome. It's very easy to work with a Cisco tech.

Our customers know its time to switch solutions because of the demands from their users to deliver faster and to be more prepared for meeting their customer's needs. They're using my company and myself as a solution provider and a trusted technical adviser, so we work very closely with our customers in the decision making.

Our customers definitely see ROI. Cisco is involved each time we do a business case, and the customers today are very cost sensitive so they're looking for return on investment. That's also why they use Cisco because they can either expand the products or they can trade the products back to Cisco and get credits and then buy new products.

We also considered IBM and Dell EMC. They go with Cisco because they're using Cisco in most of their environments so it's the easy choice. As long as Cisco provides the technology and the features that the customer needs, they don't have the need to look elsewhere.

I rated this solution an eight out of ten because there's still a little room for improvement. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to connect with Cisco, use the resources that Cisco has. Be open, discuss with Cisco, discuss the architecture the customer designed, the customer demands, include Cisco all around, both the account managers, their technical solutions, the SEs, and so on. Use Cisco.

Our use case would be deployable mobile headquarters, headquarters on the move, where we can quickly deploy to our small user community and quickly create a mobile data center. This includes using business advantage communications.

We are in the architecting phase. We are looking at it being more agile in our deployed headquarters. We are in the testing and deployment phase.

The flexibility is its most valuable feature; the ability to quickly deploy a number of help machines. It is not constrained by what we want to do. 

The product's disadvantage is that it is not necessarily open as I would like it to be. The main platform has some closed features that I would rather not see. For example, I need a mechanism to orchestrate services and an infrastructure as a service model, which is how we are deploying it. We would like to orchestrate it using an open, non-Cisco tool. While there is an API, in order to deploy it, we need to indicate it with a higher layer Network Services Orchestrator. This requires a lot of work to be done. If it could support a more open model, where we have standardized blueprints, templates, or virtual machines, it would be nice. This is an industry problem, not necessarily specific to Cisco.

I would like a lighter product; something which can be carried by a mere human. The typical size still looks like a stack of data center-sized servers, which is typically fine, but not so good if you want to carry it around.

It works as expected.

Based on the bigger picture, scalability should be good. However, we haven't tested in on scale yet. On paper, it is perfectly fine.

The technical support is good.

Our other solution works perfectly fine. However, we do capability upgrades every so often. This is a trigger for me to determine if we are looking in the right direction. As our requirements to be more agile have increased over time when working with our previous system, we learned the system is too complicated. We needed something which is smarter and can be more automated, where a physical engineer use a template and let it run, then get a green light because the system works.

The initial setup was somewhat complex, but this was because of our requirements. We were pushing the physical structure beyond what Cisco could deliver. This made life a bit miserable for the engineer.

Cisco delivered the solution directly to us. They contributed skill, personnel, equipment, and prototypes.

We are looking at Microsoft, VMware, Cisco, and Dell EMC. In the end, we will make our decision on price and functionality.

Give it a go. Work with their engineers and support staff to see if your solution fits. Challenge them to go a bit further than than their standard product.

The primary use case is for our customer who was moving from classical storage and computing to the new HyperFlex system.

It saves space for data centers, which is good.

Everything is in one device: computing, storage, and networking.

It is quite new solution, so it is not very stable. However, that is okay.

It is very scalable. It is also easy to scan.

I had some issues that I had to solve myself because of the technical support.

The initial setup is very complex because there were some issues. It is not clear to how set up this solution.

I did the implementation myself.

Involve Cisco in the beginning, as they will give you good advice about setting up the product.

While it has a lot of things to improve, it is a good solution.

We are using this product right now for our virtual environment.  

As the product develops, we are looking forward to utilizing the product on the cloud.

It has been great for the deduplication and compression of data, allowing us to save a lot of space.

If we wanted to deploy a virtual or new application, it used to take months to buy the product or hardware. Now, we can do it within fraction of seconds. That is time.

The compression and deduplication are very high. Therefore, we can use the size of the product more efficiently than other storage solutions.

I would like to see them expand onto the cloud.

HyperFlex has been very stable. It was implemented at our bank a year ago and has had no downtime.

It is scalable. We recently added three more nodes, which went very smoothly.

The technical support is very good, especially from the Cisco side.

We were not previously using another solution.

The initial setup was straightforward when implementing the hardware and deploying the software.

We used a reseller called Data Consult from Lebanon for our deployment. Our experience with them was good.

We have saved a lot of money with this solution, especially with implementation because time is money. Implementing the solution on the same box saves a lot of space.

The price is a bit high. It could be better, but the product is worth the cost.

We compared Cisco HyperFlex vs Dell EMC.

Try it. The HyperFlex solution is perfect.

Manufacturing and logistics software controls, ERP and document management servers, and database production and development servers.

Less rack space, decreased power and cooling costs, overall information technology team efficiency, and a single point of management.

The software defines networking, storage, and processing. Flash acceleration feature for most files.

Deployment scripts can be improved. Several clans need to be created before the deployment effectively works.

We don't use the solution for security. It's for converged infrastructure. 

We're a reseller and implement it for our clients. 

The solution is very reliable. It can manage activities very well. Its operation management is quite useful. The product makes monitoring easy.

It's secure.

Cisco offers many features.

Cisco offers very good quality.

We'd like the product to offer better integration with other products. 

We've used the solution for just the last year. 

The solution is stable. It's reliable, and the performance is good. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. 

We have various customers using the solution. I'm not sure how many end users they have that use the solution. 

We have not had issues with scaling. 

Technical support is very responsive. 

We have previously used a variety of different products. 

The deployment was very easy. It might take a few hours and then it is ready to go.

You only need one person to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We are resellers. 

We're dealing with the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution seven 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.

A client typically uses the solution for the VDI critical application and for the containerization as well. It's a critical application and he X location and the hybrid or multi cloud.

The solution is easy to deploy as they're based on ECS. We buy an ECS Manager so that we can scale out easily. We can also integrate with external storage. We can also scale for computing or storage only.

The product is quite stable.

It's very easy to use and quite a mature product.

As a fairly mature product, I can't think of any features that are lacking per se. 

The pricing is pretty expensive.

Right now they are coming into the public cloud, we want to be seeing HyperFlex integration with public clouds such as AWS, Azure or Google. 

I need to see the feature more use cases for the backup and restore functionalities or how  we can expand the cluster to the public cloud.

I've been using the solution since about 2018. It's been about two years or so. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very good.

We do plan to continue using the product and expanding it as needed. 

Cisco is better for enterprise-level organizations.

Cisco has great technical support. We're quite satisfied with their level of service. Cisco does offer full support for the product, which is quite helpful. They have a good amount of knowledge on their product and they are very good at sharing the information and insights they have. 

However, in comparison, Nutanix technical support is better in that they are not only knowledgeable but responsive as well.

As partners, we use a variety of solutions such as Nutanix, Cisco HyperFlex, and NetApp HCI. We don't for example, have partnerships with HPE or SimpliVity.

If you were comparing Cisco, to, for example, Nutanix, Cisco is more expensive.

The initial setup is not too complex. The installation is pretty easy as the HyperFlex has a deployment engine. We can just follow the wizard and go over everything step-by-step. Cisco has guidelines about the installation in the portal which makes it very convenient to get the insights you need.

The deployment is very fast and takes typically under one hour.

The solution can be pretty expensive. It's not the cheapest option on the market.

My role in the company is pre-sales. We offer this solution to our clients. As a partner, we don't use Cisco HyperFlex, but we propose HyperFlex for the customer.

For the deployment, we can deploy for the DC and DRC side, for the synchronous replication, and also for the stress cluster, we can also deploy for the X location as the HyperFlex has a HyperFex extraction for the X location.

I'm in Indonesia, and in this particular country/region, this solution isn't really used very widely. Nutanix is more famous in Indonesia, as it can be used by the SMB customer or small customers up to enterprises. Most hyper-converged solutions that are used in Indonesia are Nutanix.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations, however, only if it made sense and fit their company's needs.

Overall, I would rate the product eight out of ten.