Cisco Nexus Reviews

We use Cisco Nexus especially when we have bigger datacenter projects for organizations such as banks where the operations of all subsidiaries and sister companies are controlled from the head office.

The redundancy and the vPC are the most valuable features. We can integrate two switches together for file transfers; that is, we can operate two switches as one. This is because the network can be shared via a vPC trunk, particularly for devices that are not critical for redundancy.

There is limited guidance in terms of the use and configuration of Cisco Nexus for specific use cases. The documentation is not comprehensive, and you have to do a lot of online research.

I would like to have web interface configuration of the GUI in the next release. It would be good to be able to instruct via the GUI and then do the background commands.

I would also like, in terms of tracking for HSRP features, active-passive links when using multiple active-passive links. It would be great to have data automation.

I've been using it for almost 12 years.

It is a stable product.

In terms of scalability, Cisco Nexus has limitations because you have to configure another vPC domain if you want to extend it.

We have three or four engineers within our company who are experienced at configuring Cisco Nexus, and we have several large corporate clients who use it as well.

The initial setup is easy. It can take a bit of time to test for specific scenarios, but as you become more experienced with configuring for particular services, it can be fast. 

If you want high availability and redundancy in terms of stability, then I would recommend Cisco Nexus. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at eight.

We are using it for the data center. We have its latest version.

Its low latency is most valuable. Its performance is good, and it is also very stable.

The operating system needs to be improved. There should be stability in the operating system, and it should not have as many vulnerabilities.

It is very expensive. Its price could be better.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is very stable.

It is a really good scalable product. Currently, we have about 50 users. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

I don't have experience with the technical support of Cisco.

We didn't use any other solution previously.

Its installation is straightforward. It only takes 15 minutes.

We do it ourselves. We have about four admins for deployment and maintenance.

It is very expensive. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

We didn't evaluate other options.

I would recommend this solution to others. Cisco is a good vendor to work with.

I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus for the switches. It's a switch product, and I think we have 350 users on our network.

It's easy to use, and the performance is great. I like the VRF IP route for the network. It's five minutes of work. 

The price could be better. 

I've been using Cisco Nexus for the last three years.

Cisco Nexus is stable, and the performance is great.

Cisco Nexus is a scalable product.

I have contacted technical support many times, and I am satisfied with my experience.

The installations were easy. The time to deploy depends on the model and the size of the product you will be using. But it will definitely take hours. We have ten people in our team to implement and maintain this solution. But it depends on the project. Sometimes we will have 15 people working on it.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

The problem with Cisco, from what I see, is that their costs are much higher. The costs depend on the features you need, and the license is expensive.

From a functional and technical point of view, I would recommend Cisco Nexus to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Nexus a nine.

This solution is the backbone of our data center.

We have multiple tenants built on it, in a network-centric design. We have our Dev QA tenant, user acceptance tenant, production tenant, our DMZ, and then our user edge where everything comes in and goes out. We have firewalls in between all of the tenants, and we use ACI to microsegment between the networks, within the tenants. All of the intra-tenant traffic goes through the firewalls.

Prior to our deployment of ACI, everything was, essentially, flat open access. By using ACI we were able to segment out everything and get more visibility into our virtual environment. At our data center, we are 99.99% virtual.

The most valuable feature is the integration with the virtual switches of our UCS platform. It provides a lot of visibility from the ACI console. The ability to tenant-out the traffic and segment it, without having to get into separate physical hardware or trying to figure out VDCs manually, has been really powerful and extremely useful for us.

I would like to see the usability improved by simplifying the user interface. For example, it would be nice to have a simple way to find endpoints and get information about them. It would be great if they could make the interface a little more user-friendly, but not trade power off for simplicity.

This solution has been very stable and functioning properly, and we've barely touched it since it went in. We've got a big project to start doing upgrades on it, but so far so good. We haven't had any issues with it as long as I've been at the company.

In terms of scalability, we haven't grown the deployment, yet, because we're nowhere near capacity. There is a lot of scalability in terms of what we could use, although it's a matter of what we actually need. It seems very scalable, but we just haven't had the need to scale up yet.

I have not had to speak with technical support yet, which speaks to the stability of the product.

The initial setup of this solution is fairly complex. That's one thing about ACI; it takes a bit to wrap your mind around how it works. It's not overly complicated once you understand the concepts, but coming from somewhere that had never worked with anything like ACI, it was difficult for me, initially, to grasp the complexity of it. Once I did, I realized that it's not actually as complicated as it looks when you first log in.

We have used a couple of consultants over the years. I believe it was BT that assisted with the original deployment, and it is Presidio that is working on our upgrade project.

My understanding is that the people from BT were great. With respect to Presidio, they know their stuff, and they seem to be putting together good, concrete plans for our system.

I believe that we have seen ROI. We have been able to streamline our processes dramatically because of the way that the new architecture works. While it was a large investment, I believe that it has had a big impact on the productivity of our systems, in general.

There are still a lot of things that we have yet to do with this system, in particular with the APIs and scripting. Also, there are a lot of additional features that we haven't had a chance to look at yet because we haven't upgraded.

Not a lot of people in my area are familiar with this solution. It is kind of new and scary, so a lot of people are a little wary of it. However, now that I've had some time with it, I find it very powerful. Having direct access to virtual switches is a huge advantage. 

My advice to anybody researching this solution is to take a good look at it because it is great for segmenting your network. Make sure that you get a lot of training as part of your deployment, including education on how it works and why the design is the way it is, or what the best practice design is if you're looking at creating your own.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for our data center switches.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its reliability.

We have encountered some software bugs.

I have a positive impression of the stability of this solution.

I'd say that this solution is very scalable.

This solution has really good technical support. They generally respond by email, and it is really quick. They usually respond within a couple of hours.

I joined the company after this solution had been implemented.

My understanding is that the initial setup was pretty straightforward.

This is a really good product and something that I'm really familiar with. Anybody who has decided to implement this solution is making a good choice.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution is used as a switch in our data center.

This solution has made our environment more modular.

The most valuable feature is its reliability.

The technical support for this solution needs to be improved.

This solution is pretty good with respect to stability.

Technical support is not very good.

Prior to using this solution, we used Avaya switches. We experienced some hardware failures so we wanted to get a more reliable product. This is why we changed to the Cisco Nexus line. We also wanted more modularity, because when a part failed with our previous solution, you had to replace the whole switch.

The initial setup for this solution is a bit complex. Not just anybody without the technical know-how can set it up.

We had a specialist from Cisco Professional Services assist us with the implementation. Their service was all right.

The return on investment has been pretty good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus for data center requirements and interconnectivity. 

VPC is the most valuable feature for us. 

Cisco Nexus is very safe and stable. I've been here 8 months. We have some devices that have been out for 11 years.

It's scalable.

Cisco customer support is very easy and very quick. If I need to I can get somebody on the phone straight away.

I've used Ruckus, HP, Dell, and smaller products for enterprise solutions.

The hardest part with Cisco Nexus is learning new features. What would be nice is if Nexus were easier to use. Best practices in deployment would be helpful.

Cisco Nexus is just a platform. You just set it up, give it an IP, and then start configuring it. But there are a million features to configure.

I'm always thinking of the environment a little bit as I learn new things. After the initial sale, deployment I can do in an hour. Once you start trying to fork out the little kinks, it is longer.

Pay attention to what shows up in your excess logs. We try to stay current with updates. Try to keep up with that.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Nexus a 10 for stability. There's always room for improvement.

The primary use case is for a secure and reliable connection to our servers. We use Nexus to connect to servers with a large capacity and high throughput. The solution has high availability which is very important for us, and Nexus provides that.

Nexus provides the ability to visualize the servers and redundant components, like redundant supervisor modules and power supplies. The technologies like VPC (Virtual Port-Channel) really helps us to provide high availability, high throughput, and continuity to our services. That is what we want to achieve to keep our customers happy.

By improving the stability and availability it improves the way the company functions. That is what we were looking for. For very powerful equipment with a lot of throughputs and a lot of features to provide high availability.

For the Nexus solution features that we use most are the VDCs (Virtual Device Contexts) which are the virtual domain, and VPC for trunking and aggregation.

There is not much that needs to be improved at this stage. If it were possible to gain even more throughput and more port diversity, that can always be a benefit.

This solution has very good stability. The Nexus platform was selected because it is very stable with a lot of features. We are very happy with the products and the choice.

This solution scales a lot, easily. The 7000s have a huge capacity. The scalability will depend on the model you have, but the 7000s we have are very versatile. We have a lot of ports installed already and we can still add more.

I don't know if we used tech support. It could be that everything went so well that we didn't have to. But I don't know.

Previously, we had other switches (I don't know exactly which vendors as that was before I was with the company) and those were very a big investment. These new ones are not cheap, but provide more value for the money.

We had to go through different steps and that made the setup a little more complicated than it would have been if we could have deployed in one shot. We had to deploy in a few steps so it took more effort. It doesn't detract from the value of the end product.

We used partners to do the implementation. It was a very good experience. Their technical knowledge of the product was good and they integrated the box quickly. It was fast and good and would have probably taken us a lot more time had we done it on our own.

It is a bit expensive to get started. The solution is more expensive than most of the competitors for sure. But in the end, it is stable and provides a service and that meets our performance goals. So the ROI is very good.

When I came to the company they had already made their evaluations and the conversion project was already underway. I know they selected this because they felt it was the most stable solution. The route of Nexus had a lot of throughputs but it is also very reliable. We were looking for reliable, scalable technology. The point of making a change was to avoid failures and that is why we chose Nexus.

I rate the solution as a nine out of ten. The 7000 series switches, especially, I would put at nine out of ten. It is only not a ten because there is always room for improvement.

The Nexus platform is very stable. It has a lot of features and does not fail. So if you are looking for performance, stability, and reliability, the Nexus product seems to me to be the best solution.