Cisco Nexus Reviews

Cisco Nexus introduced VDC, Virtual Device Context, meaning the person has a single physical box, usually one pair, for dynamic purposes. This pair allows one to create multiple logical switches, for totally different functioning. One could be for production, another for UAT, a third for Dev. Yet, we are talking about a physically single box. It has also introduced VPC, Virtual Port Channel, which allows for more redundancy and flexibility.

Cisco Nexus if focused primarily on the data center. While it has been in the market for nearly ten years, there are still many areas in need of improvement. There may be many bugs which remain unresolved. It is important for Cisco to be aware of the various issues it encounters and come up with new releases. 

The frequency with which this occurs can vary. It may take months, be done quarterly or, sometimes, after half a year has elapsed. There is still much to be done to increase their stability, something which can depend. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We have been dealing with Cisco Nexus since it first emerged around ten years ago. 

While this can depend, there is still much to be done to improve the solution's stability. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

Nexus, which uses NX-OS, runs on a different operating system than CatOS, which means that the latter tends to run on OS - just like a Cisco router - only with the functioning being a bit different. While NX-OS is very different, even when it comes to the command line, most things are the same.

However, NX-OS already introduced a different concept, which is more like a carrier level. They have a dedicated command management module. All other modules have comparatively many more functions or power than regular Catalyst switches.

Nexus' primary focus is on the data center and supports what are known as top-of-rack or end-of-rack features, including the cost of cabling. So too, the latest one, the Nexus 9K, also supports a software-defined cloud with Cisco ACI, which is what this is referred to when typically deployed inside the company.

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We are talking about a network portion. Catalyst and Nexus switches are all part of the network domain.

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten, as it is a new platform. 

We use this solution mainly for the data center and or a yacht. They were used as core switches on a three-layer network.

They were the core level for a 90-meter yacht. They were connected with a fiber single-mode backbone.

When it comes to data centers, Cisco Nexus is the best.

The flexibility and configuration could be better. It needs to be improved.

It is not as reliable as Catalyst.

I have been working with Cisco Nexus for 15 years.

My experience with the stability of Nexus was that there was a failure with the power supply. I had to replace the hardware component related to the power supply.

I have had fewer issues with stability when using Catalyst.

Cisco support is always the same. It doesn't matter if you are looking for support for Wi-Fi, or any other product they offer, they will figure out the solution. 

The support is always the same, they are fast and professional, even if you don't have a valid service contract.

Using Nexus was a request from the customer and we installed it based on their request.

We would have preferred to install Catalyst. They are more flexible and the configuration of the high availability features are better than Nexus.

Nexus is the best solution for the data center and not as a solution for a moving environment, such as a yacht, that would have issues related to the power supply. This is why Catalyst would have been better than Nexus.

With my experience with Catalyst, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

The installation was not as easy as it was with Catalyst. The configuration was more difficult.

They have a similar CLI, but different components and features.

We need a team of four to maintain this solution. The team consists of one manager, two technicians, and one installer.

We purchased this solution as per the client's request. We completed the installation with their requested license and features.

We did not evaluate other solutions for our client.  

We didn't spend time researching the best solution for the client. They had a particular method and requested Cisco Nexus specifically.

My recommendation would be with Cisco Catalyst. I prefer Catalyst over Nexus because of its flexibility and reliability.

I only used Nexus one time and don't have a good comparison. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a switch. We use it for our data center.

Cisco Nexus is a very powerful switch. 

We don't have any problems with Nexus, ever. It's very stable. We have been, for almost five years, using Nexus, and it has been virtually problem-free. 

It's smooth to use and very, very user-friendly. 

The GUI is very, very easy to maintain.

It's very easy to log in.

The reporting is quite good. It's easy to understand. 

Technical support has been very, very helpful and they offer good SLAs.

The scalability of the product is very good.

The solution is more expensive than other options on the market. HPE, for example, is a more affordable option. 

The renewal of support is quite expensive. 

We've used the solution for about five years at this point. It's been a while. 

The stability is great. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's 100% reliable. We've never had issues. 

The solution is very easy to scale out. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

Technical support from Cisco is more than enough. It's very, very good. They are very fast and responsive and also very easy to understand. The response is good. We don't have issues with after-sales support Cisco. The SLA, service license agreement, is very, very good.

That said, the renewal for full support is very expensive for us. 

I did not handle the initial setup myself as I am not an engineer. Someone else handled that part. Therefore, I can't speak to how easy or difficult it might be. My colleague is much more versed in installation protocols. 

The solution, in general, is a bit pricey, and you need to pay extra for support, which can also be expensive. 

We're just a customer and an end-user. 

I would recommend using Cisco Nexus for those who want good performance, premium support, and easy maintenance. Cisco Nexus is a stable product in Indonesia. If a company is in the banking, oil and gas, or telecom industries, they should look into this product.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus on our server-side. We use the product for the access switches layer. We basically take a look at the actual DNA center, however, it will be a time until we will implement the agent from Cisco again.

The solution is very easy to use.

It can implement with 40-gigabit plus technologies and gives us enormous speed. What was the one gigabit per second ten years ago, is now 10 gigabits per second. The future is likely to be 400 gigabits per second. Cisco is on its way there.

The huge capacity of Nexus is excellent.

All the frames are managed on the assets, not on software, which makes things easier. It is essentially dedicated circuit hardware, an integrated circuit for certain tasks.

We can see the functionality of the switches. The policies are very clear.

The mean time between failures and TBF value is very, very high on Cisco Nexus.

The initial setup is quite simple and straightforward.

I'm not in a good position to comment on what might be lacking. I just use the Nexus switches, and I'm very happy to use the machines.

A lot of technologies and features are present on Cisco Nexus and I haven't had a chance to dive into all of them just yet.

We had some issues, strange issues with our firewall from Cisco, however, we resolved them with Cisco. They were very, very strange issues indeed. However, they seem to originate only on our site, and not from Nexus. From my point of view, I've never seen in 20 years, a single breakdown.

They should work to make the pricing more reasonable for the local market.

The stability is excellent. I haven't witnessed a breakdown. Cisco is very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is excellent.

The solution can scale. We use it for a rather large organization.

We have just over 4,000 employees and around 20,000 active ports. Our operation is big enough that it spreads over half of Romania.

The support on offer is excellent. Everyone is helpful and responsive. We get the answers we need and support is full of ideas in terms of how to tackle issues. We're quite satisfied with them overall.

The initial setup is not too diffcult. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It's quite straightforward to execute. We simply program it over the CLI, command-line interface, and it's pretty easy to do.

The pricing is a little bit high, however, we didn't use all the facilities and when we pay for a license, we pay a lot. That said, we only use a little bit from those licenses. In the local market, this solution is considered pricey. It might be fair pricing from the point of view of Cisco, however, it may be too high from the point of view of Romanian companies.

Right now, we should upgrade our wireless LAN controller, the controller WLC, and that means that we should switch to another assembly controller and we will lose all the licenses that we already have on the actual WLCs. It's not an easy decision.

In general, Cisco products are excellent and we've been really happy with them.

I'd rate the solution, on a scale from one to ten, at a perfect ten.

I use Cisco Nexus for the private cloud.

It's easy to use.

The implementation process could be easier, which is something that should be improved.

I have been using Cisco Nexus for three years.

We are using version six suite, 9372.

We don't have any issues with the stability of this solution.

Cisco Nexus is scalable.

We have 2,000 to 3,000 people in our organization who are using this solution.

I have contacted technical support.

It could be easier to install.

It takes approximately two weeks to deploy.

I have a team of 10 IT people in the IT department to maintain this solution.

I deployed the solution myself, I didn't use an integrator or consultant.

We have a virtual license.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

It's very good. I would rate cisco Nexus an eight out of ten.

The Cisco Nexus switches are the best and most reliable solution for us in my previous company, which was a telecom service provider. We used cisco modular switches for our heavy services as part of our GSM network as it requires heavy processing and highest performance.

Its easy management is most valuable. It is easy to use, easy to manage, stable, and very reliable.

The cost of the support can be improved. We had critical operations, and we needed 24/7 support for 365 days, which was quite expensive. We had to go for a very costly support contract, which was really a concern. The availability of spare parts, especially in a remote location such as Egypt, can also be improved.

I have been using this solution for quite sometime, several years.

It is stable and reliable.

It is very scalable. We had around 7,000 users in our company & more than 26 million GSM customers.

They have been responsive, but you need the right support contract. We had critical operations, and normally, we asked for the highest level of support and next-day replacement or avail spare parts on-site. It was easy and not that difficult but very costly. 

It was straightforward and easy.

General it is a mutual cooperation and ix between the in-house team and the vendor, and both are highly qualified.

Licensing is annual or every three years. We were one of the big customers, and we used to get good prices, but the cost of the support need to be improved.

I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight out of ten.

From a data center implementation, with respect to competition from your data, there isn't really a product recovery for the different tests other than Cisco Nexus. For example, if you take Multi-tenancy for the data center, it's something which, I think, only Cisco has. There are some implementations from HP, but I think it's limited there.

One of the biggest challenges, which I see is that there's a constant evolution in the product. For example, our configuration is based on what is known as traditional data center implementation. Today there is the ACI deployment and to implement, to migrate from one technology to another, that's challenging both from a configuration perspective and also from a cost perspective. We have had a problem in an order of a batch of optics, which is practically failing. So that was about the average of optics, which caused us quite some problem.

We have been using Cisco Nexus Switches since 2017 or about four years.

This year, we have only experienced the problem once. Of course, it was not identified and I had a problem with OTB wiring and we experienced it just once. I stayed in kind of generic configuration, that's why we're like Cisco, because they are significantly stable.  If you don't try to do something fancy and they don't get problems.

We have also the advance services of Cisco to support us there. I think they are still better than some competition. But, I think, their quality has decreased. In the past week they were not very good. They have had better quality.

We work with our account manager to negotiate a good price, so overall, I think the pricing is fair.

I would recommend Cisco Nexus Switches. Of course, there is the ACI deployment and the challenges there. It is always a challenge to keep up with the technology. They are just constantly doing some updates and changes and becoming the modern marketer is challenging. So in the past fiscal year for data center and every JSS deployment things are much more complicated. I would give it an eight on a scale of ten, because of the problem which we had. I'm just thinking in respect of competition.

I am an engineer and work primarily with our data center network and data center security. The Nexus switch is a data center switch and I have a lot of recent experience with it. My company is a solution provider and this is one of the products that we sell to our clients.

The 9000 series works really well in the spine-and-leaf architecture and gives you capabilities up to 400 gig.

The most valuable feature is performance. Not many customers are using the 400 gig speed yet, but you do have flexibility as if you're going to run the ports at 10 gig, 40 gig, or 100 gig. That port flexibility is really important.

There is an ongoing problem with the limitation of the TCAM table, which is that it doesn't have enough memory to allow you to be really granular with your policy. Without enough memory, it requires manual manipulation if you exceed or get near to the TCAM limits. They have improved it, but in the early days, it took down some companies.

I have been using Cisco products for many years and have experience with the Nexus line since it was first released.

These switches are very stable.

The spine-and-leaf architecture is very scalable. If you need more ports to plug servers in, you add more leaves. If you need more throughput then you add more spines.

All of the switches at the top are the spine, and those plug into those are the leaves, and then the servers plug into the leaves. It's highly scalable, because if you have more servers then just purchase two more switches. If you need more throughput and better performance, then you just purchase two switches for the spine. You can continue to scale out the model very simply.

The Nexus 9000 platform is by far the best-selling and most popular, and there are a couple of reasons for that. It's less expensive than a 7K or 5K solution and in fact, we hardly sell the 5Ks anymore. The 9000 really works well in the spine-and-leaf, which is the current architecture.

The initial setup is really straightforward and if you use ACI, running on top of the Nexus 9K, you don't really have to do anything but plug the switches in. The software manages all of the policy.

Without ACI, setup requires the use of the command line, which is the same as it's always been.

The maintenance can be handled by one person or a small team.

The Nexus 9000 is very competitively priced. 

The Nexus Dashboard is a relatively new product that is in the portfolio for the data center. It hosts the multi-site orchestrator and has functionality for self-healing and self-optimizing of the data center network. It's Nexus' best work.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that if you're looking to cut costs in the data center, there's not that big of a difference between a Cisco switch and other switches. But, when it comes to things like storage, between the most expensive and the least expensive, there's a lot of different pricing in there. So, I wouldn't cut costs on your switches. I would suggest looking at other areas where you can cut costs.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.