Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Reviews

This solution is for our customers. 

The clients care about the basic services on the UCS Server. They just want the server to transfer onto it their virtual machine.

They are looking for data configuration and no point of failure. They want multiple network cards for fiber. They usually ask for 10 gigs or 25 gigs fiber force or even ethernet. That's what they ask for most of the time.

The Cisco UCS Servers are very dependable, and they're very reliable. The clients are very happy with the product.

The solution is stable. 

Technical support is excellent.

The product is losing ground to the competition, such as Nutanix.

It's not a scalable product.

The pricing is too high and higher discounts should be available for our country.

We'd like the solution to have integration with HCI software. As per my knowledge, Cisco doesn't have any HCI software.

As a company, we've been dealing with the product for around five years.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We've had no complaints about stability in over five years. 

The solution does not scale. 

The solution is better suited for SMEs. An enterprise, when they have 20 or 30 servers, prefers something like HCI.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It is very reliable yet very expensive.

Technical support is very good. It's one of the best support services. 

We've only used Cisco up until this point. 

There is a plan to go with HCI.

Many clients are moving based on Nutanix's reputation, basically. One client went with Nutanix, and they're very happy with it. Therefore, other companies are following suit. They usually read Gartner reports and base their product decisions on finding there. 

The pricing in Yemen should be lower. It's high for the region. 

For Yemen, generally, some manufacturers can't apply the same discounts they give to other countries due to the war and the economic situation. Yet we need more discounts. 

We are partners with Dell and Cisco. 

I'm responsible for presales in general and management.

Most customers use the C-Series server to install VMware solutions. It's deployed in a data center to handle the computing. Some customers use bare metal. Others are virtual. I am certified in VMware, so I've done a lot of VMware solutions, like integration between physical and virtual networks.

The VIC card is the most important feature.

I started using C-Series Rack Servers in 2013. It was the M3 edition when I started. Today, it's M6.

The C-Series is a hundred percent stable because it uses an Intel processor with Samsung or Hynix RAM. Computing depends on RAM, CPU, and hard disk. The latest release has an AMD option, but I've never worked with it. 

The C-Series is not designed to be as scalable. They are designed to have enough RAM and enough CPU on their own side. If you want scalability, it's better to choose the B-Series— the Blade Servers — because those are much more scalable with Fabric Interconnect.

Most of the time, the C-Series is a standalone server. However, if you're talking about scalability in terms of RAM and CPU, they are excellent because you can install three terabytes of RAM. which is more than enough.

I've never contacted Cisco support because I can solve issues on my own most of the time, but my colleagues say that Cisco support is one hundred percent reliable.  

Obviously, when you have unusual issues, it's not fair to assume that the first line of support can solve your problem. They definitely need to escalate. It's not reasonable to expect that the first person you reach at Cisco can answer all of your questions, but when you are dealing with Cisco, you should be confident that they can help you. 

Deploying a C-Series rack is straightforward. It comes in two flavors. You can deploy it the standard way or do it over Fabric Interconnect, which can handle the B-Series and C-Series together if you have the license. Cisco's CIMC is much easier to deal with than the HPE's iLO. One engineer is more than enough to deploy and maintain the solution.

The server itself isn't costly at all, but the CPU and the RAM can be pretty expensive. You can buy a UCS for $2,000, but the RAM and CPU can cost up to $80,000. The most expensive asset is the intel processor, but it depends on how many cores you want and the technology you want to use on your CPU, like Hyper-V, etc. 

I rate Cisco USC C-Series Rack Servers 10 out 10. If you plan to buy a C-Series, you should be clear about why you want to use it because the uses vary. different. Whether you're using Cisco, HPE, Dell or any other brand, it's essential to define your use case. For example, are you using it for a simulation graphics, calculations, etc.?

Depending on the use case, you might want to go with a small server with more CPU. Sometimes you need a light CPU with a powerful GPU. For example, if we have a C-Series with four CPUs at the same time, or we have a server that's handled two CPUs at the same time—the purpose is crucial.

C-Series is good enough compared to other competitors like HPE and the other ones. The HPE C20 is one unit and has a lot of RAM support, but the C-series is number one, in my opinion.

I use the solution for routing. 

The C-series is the most valuable. 

The improvement should be done as per customer requirements. 

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for four years. 

It is a highly stable solution. 

It is a highly scalable solution. Twenty four users are using the solution. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. It's just create a script and then you upload it. The deployment takes two to three hours. 

The solution is moderately priced. 

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is server management.

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers could improve by adding a wider portfolio because they only have two main categories, the C-220 and 240. There is no wide range of options as other solutions have, such as Dell. Additionally, if it was more flexible with the configuration it would be good.

I have been using Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for approximately 10 years

Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are stable.

The scalability of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is okay. However, we do not have many options in this category.

We have enterprise-sized customers using this solution.

The support from Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers has been satisfactory. However, not all of the support agents have the same level of knowledge. We can experience some delays in having a response because the issue we are facing has to be escalated to the next level of agent for support.

We did not have any issues with the initial setup of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers. The process takes approximately 30 minutes.

I do the implementation of this solution for our customers.

The price of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is approximately 20 percent more than other solutions.

When comparing this solution to others, I prefer Dell. Dell is more flexible and technical support is more accessible here in Egypt because they have a technical support office here. Additionally, Dell has a wider array of options that we don't have in Cisco.

The intersite options for management make life easier for the operations and management teams because it's a single point of management for the whole server infrastructure.

I rate Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is to help manage our infrastructure within our data center service.

The solution has improved our organization by easily integrating with our VMware and storage solutions.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the expansion and replacement of parts.

The solution can be improved by adjusting the cost.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The support team is good, responsive, and helpful.

Positive

Before using the solution we used Dell and HP solutions and we switched because of a suggestion from our technology partner.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes a couple of hours. 

The implementation was completed through a vendor team.

The solution requires an annual licensing fee.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution can be implemented by one person in a couple of hours.

We currently have 1000 people using the solution.

I recommend the solution to others.

We provide the solution to our customers as per their requirements. Our customers are using the server, and they highly recommend it.

The server can be configured easily.

The product must add customer-friendly monitoring features.

I have been working with the solution for more than nine years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

The tool has high stability.

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten.

We require technical and pre-sale support.

Positive

The initial setup was easy. I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. It is an enterprise-level solution.

Compared to HPE and Dell, the commercial aspect of the product is on the higher side. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Cisco rack servers are very easy to integrate with other products from different vendors.

Generally, the solution performs well, but some customers have complained about delivery time. So, the main weakness is the lead time.

We provide Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers to our customers. However, the lead time for these servers, as well as for the switches, has been very long since COVID. So some people are looking at other products because of that.

The solution is very reliable and performs well. The customers never had any problems with them.

Scalability is okay. The solution offers good scalability.

I've heard some complaints because Cisco didn't have a dedicated company to manage the accounts. They used to be very vigilant in customer service, but once they were acquired, the customer experience has not been so good, especially regarding technical support.

Neutral

The solution is very easy to deploy.

For a typical deployment, with the right information, it should take about 2-3 weeks. However, if you need to customize the servers or deploy them in a complex environment, it could take longer.

The pricing is expensive. Compared to its competitors, Cisco servers are more expensive. The price of Cisco servers can vary depending on the configuration, the number of servers being purchased, the amount of RAM, and the storage capacity.

We are working with Cisco, Fortinet, Palo Alto, and all the popular options. We work with everything Cisco offers, like switches, routers, firewalls, and email security.

I would recommend them as long as they have the budget for it, but exploring other options is also worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. In terms of the product itself, I don't think they need to add any features. However, they could improve the delivery charge and technical support price.

The solution is reliable and easy to use. 

The capacity is quite small, so I need the CPU performance to be a bit higher. The memory is also limited, and we cannot upgrade more. The solution needs more capacity and more scalability. 

I have been working with this product for three years.

The product is scalable. Currently, we have six people working with it in our company. 

The technical support from Cisco is fair. 

I have used HP and Dell servers before. The products are pretty similar, but we use them for different purposes. 

The initial setup was easy. It was not complex. It took around two hours, including the installation of the operating system. 

We handled the implementation with help from the local vendor. 

The price for Cisco is a bit higher than its competitors. We paid 40k for one server. We paid 50% at the time of the purchase order and 50% after the product was delivered. 

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.