Cisco UCS Manager Reviews

We mainly use this solution to manage the UCS C and B blades.

The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I also like the dashboard, as it is quite user-friendly.

We haven't had any stability issues so far.

We have about 20 users and I believe this program is scalable.

The technical support is good and the team was very helpful.

I installed and deployed the program myself and it was really straightforward.

I am not sure what the price is, but you buy the hardware and then you get Cisco UCS Manager for free. 

I would definitely recommend this product to others and my rating for it would be nine out of ten. The pricing can always be better, so I would like to see that being improved. 

We use this solution to manage our infrastructure.

The most valuable features are the conferencing in the video and audio, it's a promising solution.

Cisco has the edge on the data portion. The compatibility between the Cisco infrastructure along with the UCS manager or any collaboration solution definitely has more levels.

The Voicemail is smart, it does a good job. It is a luxury that Cisco is providing.

Firepower has weaknesses. I had to load several partitions to improve it.

A smart office solution provided us with a demo showing us the camera qualities. I believe that Cisco is moving forward with this.

In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to their security. Also, they have to introduce firewall compatibility in the UCS, as with Firepower where they have a dedicated box with their software, switches, and routing. It's a one-box solution and it would be a huge benefit for Cisco.

Cisco depends on other vendors like IBM and HP for the hardware. Cisco should improve its hardware manufacturing in regards to the UCS and the use of other vendor's hardware.

I have been working with Cisco for the last twenty-one years. Their technical support is outstanding. There is a huge availability across the globe for the first level of support and installation.

I am very happy with the support.

We deployed this solution on-premises.

Cisco is moving forward with its licensing.

VMware is one of the leading solutions in terms of the voice domain, but they have good competition with Microsoft 2019 that also has the CI solution that Microsoft introduced.

VMware has a good solution in terms of SDDC (Software-Defined Data Center) and now they have a new solution called SCI. It's a mature solution.

One of the negative parts of VMware is the licensing, everything requires a license. VMware is a solution that is costly at the end of the day. This needs to be improved.

Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing. They have a new solution called Cisco DNA where they have improved the security, OT environment, and IoT.

It is a good solution for WAN technology.

Cisco is on top of the infrastructure.

Cisco Wise Mail IT is now called Unified Messaging. The unity was the first introduction to Cisco for voice mail integrated with cross messaging and now they have a full collaboration solution in one box.

Cisco Tetration Technology has recently been introduced, but it has not yet matured in the market. We haven't used this solution yet as it is not mature yet. We saw a demo in Dubai, they showed us the functionalities.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is to help us manage our infrastructure and reduce time and effort for these tasks.

Right now it has improved only some things as we need to upgrade for additional functionality.

What would be the most valuable features for us are things we can't even work with yet. We work with an older version of the product that cannot do some things that we need. We can't install the next version because we cannot find great local support assistance for Cisco.

So, instead of using these features through Cisco, which is eventually what we want to do, we blend in with other solutions like Nutanix. The upgrade in Nutanix is very easy and doesn't require downtime. But with Cisco, we have already products and services in the server. We can't afford the downtime that it would take to make the upgrade and we can't find anyone professional to assist us with the problem at this point. 

If there were a way to make the upgrade process better, it would be great. Our most important issue right now is to resolve the installation barrier so we can use the product features fully. We needed to phase in new hardware and try again with Cisco HyperFlex M5.

Also if we had one interface, it would solve some operating issues. If we can control all devices from one interface, I think it would help a lot.

The solution itself is very stable.

I think this product is very scalable. We have maybe 50 or 60 users right now working with SAP applications like S/4 HANA and it's working well for now. For now, we do not have immediate plans to scale usage as far as staff, but we are investing in new hardware. This will allow us to make any upgrades before we put the products into production. We can do the upgrade with no downtime no problems.

The system for technical support is working well, but I've opened more than five or six technical support issues for HyperFlex. So it's very good for response time and attention, but when I asked to make this upgrade, they tell me that they can't do that. If you want to upgrade or want any service, we can open new tickets. But we open one and then another and the problem isn't solved. 

With HyperFlex, the firmware has some issues. If we can't upgrade, we can't solve some problems and enhance the threshold in this product. We need solutions to problems not to just open more tickets.

We did work with previous products to set up a traditional server solution. We switched to Cisco UCS Manager because it is more powerful. We knew about our limitations because we were not familiar with this product and lack some better access to local technical support. We planned to take the UCS Manager course and training to solve these issues.

The installation is very complex. We work with Hypervisor VMware. We study the competitive advantage of different combinations and compatibilities. Because there are so many options this process becomes very complex. Compared to Nutanix, we don't investigate anything. We just click download and install the system. 

From day one when we were initiating HyperFlex, we worked with version 1.9 at the time. After one year, we made the upgrade to 2.0 and then 2.1. After many open tickets and trying many times, we can't upgrade the tool to 2.201. So, we are still trying to get to the point where we want to be with the implementation and it is one year and three months. 

We implemented on our own but for the upgrade with would like to work with assistance. We have not been able to find proper assistance in our area.

If someone working with SAP (System Analysis and Program Development) or some other system, I recommend HyperFlex for that infrastructure as a better hardware solution but not the application. If you work with SAP and something like S/4 HANA or anything else, Cisco is a good hardware solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco USC Manager a seven because the pricing and quality of the product with the discount from Cisco make HyperFlex a good value compared to other solution.

As we preferred Cisco as a solution at a great price, I think many people will consider it a better option. With some training and support, we can solve the issues we have.

Before choosing Cisco, we did not evaluate other options because we were familiar with the company through other products and their reputation.

We primarily usually use UCS Manager where we've installed from the ESXI Host and are hosting multiple UCM's.

There are occasions when we have or have had one of the VM licenses expiring and that required us to quickly create a new implementation of some issues. The solution makes the process easy.

If I'm playing with a new host, the most valuable aspect is that those servers can get a host up and running in quickly. 

I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own.

They should work to simplify the server creation template.  

The solution feels very stable. I seldom get UCS Manager related issues.

The solution is highly scalable, mainly because of the templates that make it easy for you to actually edit on the system.

Technical support is good, but I find it best when I log a call when the team in America is working so that it gets assigned to someone there. European support isn't as good as the US support.

I wasn't a part of the original setup team, so I can't speak to its level of difficulty. You only need one administrator to handle the solution once it's implemented.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

It's a good solution, as long as you can maneuver admin paths and are competent in running the day to day support tasks.

The solution is a bit complicated and complex, but the trade-off is you have a lot of functionality.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's a great tool for configuring all the features required for servers like storage, compute, and network. 

The best thing about UCSM and the UCS B-Series servers is its centralization, which means from one location we can configure storage, network and compute for all the servers that will be using it. It's very easy to add more servers with a very less effort.

So far for me, it's great and is a perfect solution. But the GUI needs some work.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

Unification of storage as well as networking and compute and defining them with software (SDDC) are valuable features.

The best product in the market for Cloud business -- CAPEX and OPEX -- will be reduced.

Complete integration of the network, and the Nexus layer management and configurations could be improved.

We've used it for over five years.

Initial configuration of FlexPod due to the knowledge limitation.

We faced issue with Nexus vem licensing issue which makes our complete DC went isolated in connect

Scalability wise it was very nice, it would be good if the maximum limitation of chassis for the FlexPod is changed from 32 to 64 – which allows more scalability for the business

It's very good.

It's very good.

No previous solution used.

It was complex due to a limitation in our knowledge.

Through a vendor who had good expertise.

It has a good ROI comparatively to all other products/solutions.

IBM infrastructure with a Microsoft solution.

I strongly recommend that you go with a Cisco UCS solution for a cloud business.

I have experience with Cisco InterSite, but only for a proof of concept (POC). I used it to demonstrate its functionality to our clients.

Creating UCS service profiles for quickly deploying servers and replicating that configuration to another server makes it easier for deployment.

There are options that could make configuration and administration easier. Improving functionalities similar to InterSite within UCS Manager would be beneficial.

The initial setup is really easy. I deployed an infrastructure with about eight hosts in maybe six hours. This includes installing the chassis in the rack, installing the blade, and making connections.

I performed the deployment activities physically, including configuration. I usually handle these tasks alone.

Cisco is the most expensive compared to other vendors like Dell and HP when it comes to data center solutions.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.