Cisco Intersight Reviews

I use it mostly for managing servers and updating their hardware licenses to get the hardware status in the cloud. Mostly, my customers develop Intersight on-premises because there are many restrictions from regulatory bodies for cloud sessions or going to the cloud for any data. 

It is almost always implemented as on-premises. There are many servers to look after; previously, it was for HX. If customers are currently going for HCI, we will need Nutanix and Intersight.

We no longer need to use Fabric Interconnect. We can directly use Intersight to bring up the cluster of HCI. I have seen an ROI from this solution. This solution has provided time savings and required fewer people to operate this tool, rather than direct cost savings.

I do not have notes for improvement. 

I have used the solution for not more than two years.

Most of my customers don't complain, so stability seems to be okay.

I don't need to go beyond the scale I have.

For Intersight, and in general, Cisco provides better support than anyone else. However, sometimes it depends on the engineer. 

I rate it a ten out of ten. I don't have any issues with it.

We implement it.

I have seen an ROI from this solution. It's not just in terms of cost savings. It is also in time savings and requiring fewer people to operate this tool. Sometimes it's about indirect costs as well. The solutions are good.

There is another grid in the market. Customers are looking for other solutions more often. They are going with solutions that provide all solutions together, like Nutanix, which can implement everything without needing two solutions from two different vendors. I think it is okay in this case.

If your environment needs the capabilities required on Intersight, such as HCI implementation, I would suggest it. 

The overall product rating is eight out of ten.

We are a cloud provider serving customers with IaaS.

The features enable you to abstract the server personality away from the hardware, similar to the B-Series.

Cisco Intersight does have some integrations, though we have other automations to accomplish similar tasks, so we do not require Cisco Intersight to do everything.

The firmware management in the S-Series is not as Cisco described when we purchased it. You should be able to manage firmware without bringing the host down, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, it brings both servers in an S-Series rack down.

I do not use HyperFlex. It would be beneficial if Cisco had provided a migration path from UCS Central to Cisco Intersight.

The maintenance pricing is overly expensive.

First-level support quality can be problematic at times.

I have been using this solution for 30 years.

I have not experienced any errors. I have not had many issues with the B-Series overall. The usual RAM issues occur, but that is typical with server maintenance.

The technical support is good, and I would rate them an eight.

Positive

We are still working with Cisco.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I have experience with B-Series, C-Series, and S-Series equipment. I would recommend the S-Series but not the C-Series. I would rate this solution an eight overall.

The most common use case was the HyperFlex deployment in the past. However, with HyperFlex being discontinued, I now focus my efforts on selling Intersight with iWORK Waterlog Optimizer. This is valuable for clients with hybrid environments.

The visibility and optimization of workloads are very important features for the company.

The optimizer is valuable for selling the solution. Intersight offers a simple monitor feature, which can be integrated with other Cisco products, while still providing a solution with another brand. Additionally, it offers visibility and optimization of workloads, which are very important features for a company.

More products should be made compatible with iWORK, including more software and hardware. There is also a need to increase the number of partners.

I have worked with Cisco Intersight for approximately three years.

It is a good platform that is available for clients. However, it has a few bugs or issues that require technical integration to resolve. Some steps are not included in the official documentation, which can create challenges.

I would rate the scalability of Cisco Intersight as eight out of ten.

Technical support from Cisco has been mixed. For complex issues, it's challenging to get the right engineer quickly unless you have a specific contract like CX. It can be difficult to escalate issues with a basic smart net.

Neutral

The initial setup is not complex, however, certain issues with devices need to be addressed by technical support.

I am not involved in pricing topics, however, regarding licensing, it is very simple to understand for both myself and the customer, making it easy to manage.

Even if there are some issues during the first implementation, Intersight offers many features that provide great value to companies. The solution is generally valuable, even if the customer uses non-Cisco products.

We use the solution for server management across various locations.

With Intersight, it is pretty simple to manage all the environments. We don't really need to deploy any management solution.

Intersight can validate our environment. It tells us if the environment has issues and whether they are critical. It's pretty easy to connect with other tools. Intersight’s analytic features played a big part in our decision-making processes. We wanted the analytics to see how the environment is working. It was one of the reasons why we chose to buy Intersight. It requires a license.

We used the solution's automation capabilities, but it wasn’t easy. It was part of why we took some time to deploy the solution. It didn't give us much value. It wasn't that good. Intersight is a pretty complex solution. It can give you a lot of things, but nothing is simple. The usability must be better.

I have been using the solution for the last few months.

We never had any issues with the stability.

It’s a cloud solution. We never do anything in terms of scaling the environment. It is scalable. There is nothing for us to configure, manage, or maintain. Two system administrators are using the product in our organization. It is used once a week. If we don't have any alerts and don't need to change anything in the environment, we barely use it.

The technical support is not that great.

Neutral

The setup is straightforward. It is very easy to deploy the tool. It is a cloud solution. Cisco manages everything. We consume it as part of the public cloud and connect our environment. It doesn’t require maintenance. The inter-site deployment can be done within a few minutes. It was very straightforward and easy.

The solution was deployed in-house.

The product is cost-effective. We do not pay much for the tool.

We have evaluated Scale Computing and some solutions from HPE. One of the benefits of Intersight is its ability to examine the environment. We can understand whether everything's working fine and everything is connected correctly. It gives us an insight into how our solution is deployed.

The one big advantage is that it helps us know whether our solution is deployed correctly, whether we have the right drivers and devices, and whether everything is working correctly. I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We're using Cisco Intersight for performance monitoring, such as checking the hardware, plus performance management. We couldn't do performance monitoring with just the Cisco UCS Manager.

What I like most about Cisco Intersight is its manageability.

An area for improvement in Cisco Intersight is automation. It needs more automation capabilities.

Apart from enhanced automation, I want Cisco Intersight to integrate with third-party monitoring tools in its next release.

I've been using Cisco Intersight for more than two years.

Based on experience, Cisco Intersight is a stable solution.

Cisco Intersight is a scalable tool that you can scale up and down according to your needs.

The technical support for Cisco Intersight is knowledgeable and responsive, so my rating for the support team is four out of five.

We're using Cisco UCS Manager at the same time we're using Cisco Intersight. Still, with Cisco UCS Manager, we can't monitor the performance of the hardware, so we're using Cisco Intersight for that purpose.

Setting up Cisco Intersight was easy, so the initial setup is a four out of five for me.

Cisco Intersight has competitive pricing. On a scale of one to five, my rating for its pricing is four.

We evaluated the Cisco UCS Manager.

Cisco itself maintains Cisco Intersight at the ground level. You need one to two people to make some checks, but Cisco handles maintenance. Twenty people use Cisco Intersight within the company.

My rating for Cisco Intersight is seven out of ten.

My company is a Cisco Intersight partner.

While it is a very complex solution. We have managed to deploy it for ten data centers across our environment.

It's doing pretty well. We're managing our EdgeX nodes and doing all the upgrades.

It has helped us in many ways. Since our team is only six members and we have ten data centers across the site, it's difficult for us to manage the patching for EdgeX plus the firmware upgrades. Both are very heavy and very critical. Using Intersight with this small team makes our job easy. That's the biggest benefit - the ease of management.

I have had a very good experience. 

It has many great features. 

We enjoy having an inside view of all the data centers and all the EdgeX nodes within a single portal rather than going into the EdgeX connections one by one.

The solution can scale. 

It's a very complex solution.

Sometimes it's lacking upgrades in the UCS, and I have to deal with the firmware from the UCS manager. 

We're now looking towards expansion and adding vCenters in Intersight. We are currently exploring the new features with our partner. Since we have the on-prem version, its features are fewer than the cloud. It would be nice to have more features for the on-prem option. 

There is room for enhancement in a feature called Robo. 

I've been using the solution for almost four years. 

The major challenge for us and for Cisco Intersight is the upgrade process. Sometimes when we ask for the upgrade, we had to have a discussion internally with the team and with our Cisco tech engineer regarding the latest version. The current version for us was 4.52B and we were exploring the idea of moving to 2C, and they recommended going first to 2E. When we asked why they told us that version was very stable and came highly recommended. 

I know there is a difference between the long-term upgrade and the feature upgrade. Sometimes you need the new batches to eliminate any vulnerabilities or fix any bugs.

It's easily scalable. 

Only the system administrators are using the solution. That's six people. 

I'm not sure if there are plans to increase usage right now. 

Regarding support, our tech engineer is always available 24/7. We had one major issue at the beginning of the new year last year. and the tech engineer was with us right away at the time. The issue started at 10:00 PM in Egyptian local time, which means GMT plus two. We were stuck on the issue for almost six or seven hours. He stuck with us and was very professional and handled the job very professionally.

Technical support is always there whenever we need them.

Positive

I have not used a different solution. 

I wasn't there attending to the implementation for Intersight. That said, I managed to deploy the EdgeX nodes and the clusters for the standard and the edge clusters for the standard edge. I have been there to witness how to deploy the extended nodes as well. It's very complex, and it requires lots of technical skills. That said, the process was very enjoyable for me, exploring new tech from Cisco.

You only need two people to deploy the solution - one member of the IT team and one administrator. Typically you want to ensure the person with the most experience is handling the implementation. 

While I'm sure there is an ROI based on the benefits I've seen, I don't have any hard statistics. 

The hyper-converged technology is one of the major technologies right now, especially in consolidating the network and the storage tiers. It relieves us from a lot of pain and a lot of workload regarding the storage tier and network tier, and also the environment for it.

I do not handle the licensing aspect of the solution. 

I have heard of Nutanix and VxRail as other options. We looked into these and after some long discussions chose to instead go with Cisco. We do use a lot of Cisco in our infrastructure. 

We're currently using the EdgeX nodes M5, and the next generation is M6. I really recommend using these servers. It's really solid and actually has very long-term stability.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'm an IT enterprise system administrator.

Implementing this solution has helped us in many ways. We have 10 data centers across the site, so there's a lot to manage. The patching for the HX and the firmware upgrade is very heavy and critical. Given that we are a small team, Intersight has simplified the work for us. 

The most valuable feature is the view we get for all the data centers and all the HX nodes using a single portal, rather than having to go into the HX Connect one by one. We've deployed Intersight across our environment and it's doing well, managing our HX nodes and doing all the upgrades. 

This is a complex solution and I sometimes end up having to deal with the firmware from the UCS manager because the UCS isn't upgraded. There's room for building the cluster in two nodes but it needs some enhancement for that. It would benefit us having that and it doesn't require much additional technology, or extra cost.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

I think the major challenge for us and for Cisco Intersight, is the upgrades. We've sometimes asked to go for an upgrade and Cisco has recommended that we take a previous version because it's more stable. There is a difference between the long-term upgrade and the feature upgrade but sometimes you need the new batches to eliminate any vulnerabilities or to fix any bugs.

We only have six users in the company but the solution is scalable. 

The technical support is great. They are always there whenever they're needed regarding the heavy workload that we have in our environment. 

The tech engineers are available 24/7 up there. We had a major issue a year ago and the tech engineer was with us when the problem came up at around 10:00pm. It took about six or seven hours to solve and he was very professional did his job very well.

Positive

I wasn't around for the initial implementation, but I deployed the HX nodes and the clusters for the standard and the edge clusters. It's very complex and requires lots of technical skills, but I enjoyed exploring the new tech. We had an IT system administrator, and a team leader assisting as they have the most experience with the solution. 

We do get a return on our investment. Hyperconverge technology is one of the major technologies right now, especially in consolidating the network and storage tiers. The ROI is a big reduction in pain points and workload regarding the storage and network tier, and also the environment for it.

We didn't evaluate anything else because we have a big profile with Cisco in terms of our network and our scope as system administrators. 

We're currently looking to expand and add the vCenters in Intersight. We're currently working out how to add vCenter and the other nodes, and make sure that all of them are in a healthy state. We're also considering a move to the cloud because of the additional features available. I really recommend using the next-generation M6 servers. It's solid with long-term stability.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The tool helps to manage Cisco servers. 

The product's setup should be easier. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The product is stable and I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the solution's scalability a ten out of ten. 

The tool's setup is not straightforward. It took three days for the deployment to complete. We collect information and scope from customers and then install the virtual machines. 

You can get a free license for monitoring but need to purchase a license if you need extra control. 

Cisco Intersight has multiple use cases. It has developed into a bigger portfolio. Earlier, it was used mostly to manage the devices remotely. It was initially from Meraki, but then I saw it trickling down to switches. Now it is for HyperFlex, so now they're also developing: CBO, IWO, etc., are now being brought onto Cisco Intersight as part of its product portfolio. The product can be used for many things, mostly for management.

What I like best about Cisco Intersight is the way it's developing and converging into everything that the cloud has to offer, e.g. it's converging into one platform which is good. It's good for cloud integration, so it can be a Kubernetes cluster. It can be your on-premise cluster. It can be hybrid cloud. All of that can be managed through different suites within Cisco Intersight. It is a good product.

What could be improved in Cisco Intersight is hybrid cloud management, especially when compared to the likes of VMware Tanzu, though VMware Tanzu is quite mature, while Cisco Intersight is just new. Hybrid cloud management is a segment of the product that would need a lot of improvement.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Cisco Intersight is for it to have a proper hyperscale tie-up, e.g. it can be Amazon, Azure, GCP, etc. It should also have SDN solutions, and the ACI solution should be as competitive as NSX. ACI is good, but it's mostly good as an underlay solution, so on the contrary, NSX does it on the overlay, and you can call them as a proper SDN solution. When it comes to microservices, NSX is the de facto.

Cisco Intersight is a stable product, but it needs some improvement. From one to five, I'm scoring it a three.

Cisco Intersight is a scalable product.

The initial setup for Cisco Intersight was quite easy. It was not that difficult. From one to five, one being difficult and five being easy, I'm rating it 3.5.

Cisco Intersight is not cheap, but it's not the most expensive product either. If I would rate the price from one to five, I'd rate it a three.

I evaluated VMware Tanzu.

We are partners with Cisco. We are solution integrators. We are not customers.

Cisco will be focusing more on Cisco Intersight, so that's where we are going. That's the solution we're using.

We do both on-premises and cloud deployment with Cisco Intersight. We can also do SaaS.

For one organization, two people is enough to maintain Cisco Intersight, particularly for a mid-size customer.

The number of Cisco staff here is large enough, but the technical staff, are not as many as you'd desire. They have a local presence, but not as big as Dell EMC. We are the biggest partner of Cisco here in our region.

Cisco Intersight has a lot of competitors, e.g. GCP, Azure, AWS, etc., but it's quite a new product on the rack, so it'll take some time for it to develop.

Cisco Intersight is a recommended product, but you should have a Cisco install base. It's not meant for a non-Cisco install base. It's a very good tool if you have a Cisco house, but if not, you won't see much from the product, because it's not a very heterogeneous solution. It's primarily for Cisco workloads. It's not mature enough, so I don't think there are a lot of options in Cisco Intersight for non-Cisco workloads.

I would rate Cisco Intersight eight out of ten.

Cisco Intersight has valuable features for workflow automation and inventory administration.

The product could be easy to use, similar to CloudIQ. Additionally, they should provide more information to make decisions.

We are a Cisco partner. Thus, we communicate directly with cloud specialists in their technical support team.

Positive

The initial setup process is easy.

I rate Cisco Intersight a seven out of ten.