Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Reviews

I do not yet use the latest update, instead using the full solution which the client has. I use all versions of the solution. 

We make IT use of the solution, employing several types of servers, for management, virtualization or whatever may be the needs of the client. The solution comprises a server. I use a standalone server.

There is no one feature that I have found to be most useful. I utilize all the features of the solution which I require. 

The price of the solution is problematic, not the solution itself. It could be less expensive. 

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

The solution is stable. 

The solution is easily scalable. 

I feel the technical support to be fine. I cannot think of anything needing improvement in this regard. I rate the support as an eight out of ten. 

The solution is easy to set up.

The solution could be more cost-effective. 

We had plans to use VMware and then Cisco Prime. 

I still use the solution, installing it and providing support for clients. 

The solution is not deployed in my organization, but in those of my clients. 

I can't think of any features which need to be added to the solution. All of them are good. 

I rate Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers as a nine out of ten. 

Virtual machines

The hardware customization capabilities are great. 

I would like to see a little more integration with VMware. They used to have a plugin, but it was recently removed.  

I have been using this solution for three years. 

This solution is both very stable and scalable. 

Their technical support is quite good. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It was very simple. 

Yes, we have seen a return on investment with this solution.

This solution is a little expensive. 

I would recommend this solution to others because it saves a lot of space and it's very scalable.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. 

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we provide to our clients.

What I really like about the Cisco USC Server is its service profile. They're using software abstraction, which means that the hardware is abstracted as a layer of software and managed by the UCS manager.

We have been selling Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers for approximately two years.

The product is quite stable.

The USC C-Series is a scalable solution.

I find the initial setup straightforward and easy. I don't know if I'm biased because I am quite familiar with Cisco products. It takes between two and three hours to deploy.

Two people are enough for deployment and maintenance.

This product is quite expensive and it would be better if it were cheaper.

This is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using it for our IP telephony. We use it for internal communication in terms of making calls, instant messaging, and one-on-one video calling. We also use it when we're working from home remotely. We also use Cisco Jabber as well as Expressway for Firewall Traversal.

In terms of the software, we're using the latest version. In terms of the hardware, we are two generations behind. We simply did a software upgrade on the old hardware.

It is very stable and easy to use. It integrates easily with Cisco's cloud-based UC solutions. There are tools for management that make the management a bit easier, but we don't use them. We don't use what you would term as power users.

On the contact center and video conferencing, I would definitely like to see more AI features. The AI features are key for us. You will find a lot of them in the cloud-based solution, but in the on-premises solution, they're hardly there. I would like to see the same AI features that are there in the cloud-based Cisco UC.

We've been using it for ten years.

It is a very stable product.

It is highly scalable. We have ten people in our office, and we have deployed it for our use. Our biggest customer has about 4,000 users, but you can scale it to 40,000 users. 

We provide technical support ourselves. There are a few instances where we have to refer to a Cisco technical support person.

The installation is straightforward. Normally, the installation takes four to six hours.

We are an integrator. We implement it for ourselves and for customers. It is easy for us.

I would definitely recommend this solution. We plan to keep using this solution. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

They are for general, mixed usage that includes use cases such as virtualization and hosting VMware.

The warranty and support periods should be extended. One of the things that we like about Dell and HPE is the longer duration of support.

What we would really like to see is more years of extended support. If somebody wants to extend it to five years or seven years, this should be possible because some of our customers really want it.

We have been working with this product for between five and six years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue working with it in the future.

This product is scalable and is typically installed on-premises for customers who are small to medium-sized businesses. We have dozens of clients who use it.

Technical support is good and we don't have a problem with it, although they have a shorter support cycle for their products.

We work with several vendors including Dell and HPE. When it comes to Dell, the warranty period is generally longer compared to Cisco.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to do. It is not complex at all.

It does not take much time to deploy.

Our in-house team deploys this solution to our customers. Not many people are required for deployment. Two people might be used for racking and stacking, and one person for the configuration.

This product is slightly more expensive when compared to others.

We do not deal with the latest version because we find that for rack servers, the previous version is a little better. Manageability is not a big option for this type of server.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Excellent server solution with incredible network throughput. 

It has centralized our server management and allows us to treat servers like a pool of resources instead of discrete devices.

Boot from SAN allows us to standardize all of our servers to boot up drives to the storage area network.

Not sure about the newest UCS Manager.

In the version we need to use, the manager is still reliant on a full Java install on a Windows OS. This is inconvenient and problematic if you have multiple management tools on different versions of Java or if you move to a machine without the appropriate Java environment.

Best to buy all the blades configured for the same purposes of load balancing and failover or load shifting.

The Cisco solution has improved the new infrastructure development giving us the ability to create a compute-storage in-a-box solution.

It is very nice and stable with an easy administration GUI. It has reliable and compliant hardware components which are not "Cisco rebranded."

Definitely the support area needs improving. Especially the time response in case of hardware failure.

We only had hardware issues from two disk failures.

Absolutely we had scalability issues. We tried several times to upgrade, scale up, expand our infrastructure, but Cisco insists to demand excessive amounts of money. Much more than buying a new infrastructure. This behavior forced us to choose another vendor later and we downgraded of course the role of our Cisco infrastructure.

Ι would say the technical support is average. Nothing special.

It was a difficult decision but we switched for two reasons - better value-for-money approach and more compatible hardware.

It was very easy and straightforward and it was done without previous experience.

I would advise to be very careful regarding the pricing especially if they don't buy complete or all included bundles. If they plan to expand their infrastructure in periods, then simply Cisco is not a good choice.

We evaluated HPE DL380 and Dell R730

Update the system with the latest firmware set. There are plenty of fixes.