Cisco Nexus Reviews

I do not know which version we are using. 

The solution has good stability, so the technical team, the people handling the data center, are very comfortable with it and can push some policies as per the applications. So, I feel the solution to be okay. It really supports the management perspective. While it may not add value for the users, it enables the administrators to work freely. I am referring to the port network switches. 

The solution could be more user-friendly. 

It should have a more lenient cost. It could be cheaper in general. 

The installation process lasted too long, taking 16 to 24 hours for full completion. It should be faster. 

We have been using Cisco Nexus for two years.

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

I feel the solution to be sufficiently scalable. 

Tech support is good. There is no need for it to be improved. 

Installation is unduly long, with the entire process lasting 16 to 24 hours. 

We have around ten people managing these devices, consisting of managers, administrators and engineers. 

The solution should be more cost-effective in general. There is an annual licensing fee. 

The same 9,000 people connect daily to these applications in our data center.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. 

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten. 

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.

The solution is our aggregation switch. We have all our data services, and users (not end-users) services going through our Nexus. It connects our firewalls and it connects other switches and makes our load balances work. Basically, we were given the switch and then we configured it and we will put it in the network and we maintain it.

The solution seems to be quite stable. We have had to upgrade recently as we were on an engineering release of code, and we don't tend to have problems with the Nexus. 

You can scale the product.

Technical support seems to be okay.

The solution could be improved in general in all aspects. 

When it comes to technical assistance, you cannot speed up things. You can try to escalate, however, there's a process. You have not got them on speed dial. You need to wait.

It would be ideal if there was better integration with various other platforms. 

I've been using the solution since 2015. It's been six years.

The stability of the solution is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable. 

The solution can scale.

The product provides services for thousands of our customers. If we look at Nexus and the media portals, then we've got millions of customers that will use the end service. That all goes through the Nexus F5.

In terms of technical support, we would go through the third party who would contact Cisco. It's fine. It works quite well at the moment. It would be nice if they could be quicker.

I did not handle any of the initial setup. I can't speak to if it was complex or straightforward. 

I can't speak to the pricing as I am not in procurement. Once it gets delivered, we'll put it in the network and then we'll configure it and then operate it. We are in operations. We don't directly handle licensing.

We are a customer and an end-user.

It's my understanding that we are using version 9, however, I cannot speak to if what we are on is the latest version or not. 

In our organization, there are hundreds of engineers. There are multiple teams. I work in a team that looks after the data center and we are on-premises, although there is also a cloud team.

From an operations perspective, when I look at service availability and the number of failures, I'd say the solution is probably about a seven out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users. It is tried and tested in our network, and it works well. It could work for other companies.

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.

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.

I use the solution in the customer's companies. I have used many different version of the solution. 

I find all the data center features to be most valuable, such as VXLAN and OTV. The ACI and FEX connectivity are good features too. Cisco is refining the features all the time and you can see this in all the different vendors.

They could improve on having different technologies between product models. The management dashboard could be better if it could handle the Catalyst and the Nexus at the same time. If Cisco could find management connectivity between the DMA center and the ACI connectivity this would be helpful.

I have been using the product for more than ten years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the scalability good with this product.

The support we received was excellent.

I have worked previously with Catalyst version 6500, 4500, and 3750 series, most of them.

The setup of the solution was easy.

The price of the product is reasonable.

In all the benchmarks and testing that I did, I found the best solution to be Cisco. I recommend the product. They have a good product with all the features that are required. 

I rate Cisco Nexus a nine out of ten.