FlexPod XCS Reviews

The key features and functionalities of NetApp FlexPod that the company uses run:

1. VMware Horizon View
2. standalone workloads.

The environment is NetApp Controller FAS8040, Cisco Nexus switches (5000/7000/9000) and Cisco UCS Server with fabric interconnect.

A single FlexPod can support a load of 2,000 - 5,000 employees without downtime.

SolidFire all-flash block storage in an existing FlexPod data center environment. This improves the agility and performance, including the additional load of cabling.

• Support for multiple vendors' hardware
• Support for SAN with Cisco 9000 switches
• Automated deployment and configuration with respect to CVD

The most valuable feature is that it’s all treated as one piece with regard to support. If you have any problem with it and you need to get through to either the Cisco team, or even some of the partners such as VMware and so on, it's one support case, so my team isn't hunting around for someone to actually figure out how to fix their problem.

As I’ve mentioned, the simplicity is a benefit, as are the reference architectures.

A couple things could be improved, for example, the interconnect switching. They need to be more flexible. If you already have an all-Cisco, all-certified solution, requiring you to buy the NetApp interchange switch is silly. It should all be one package. They've got to be more flexible on how they deal with that.

I'm looking for making it as simple as possible, leveraging as much as possible my existing infrastructure; not having weird, odd bits and baubles that are kind of added on.

It's been highly stable. We've been really happy. We've moved off of HP platform onto the Cisco server platform. We've been using NetApp, but it tends to be a more kind of integrated, overall solution.

We’ve had no problems scaling it; we're just over 9 PB right now.

As I’ve mentioned, we were previously using HP. We decided to switch because we had actually seen the FlexPod at a conference and at a number of other things. We were looking at the solution. At first, we had a specific application that we needed a closed-loop solution on. We tried it with that. When we saw it and liked it, that's when we decided to do a larger deployment with it.

We are working our way out of the C7000 line of BladeSystem infrastructure. We got in Gen 6, I think. We're at Gen 9 now. I just signed a PO for a bunch of Gen 9 gear. Those systems, where we've had them, have been rock solid and have lasted us the entire thing. The storage piece to HP was a little less convincing. Particularly since they are kind of leaning on 3PAR and their storage keeps changing. We weren't as convinced. We had a lot of NetApp and we just felt more comfortable staying with it. When we saw that NetApp had partnered with Cisco, it seemed like a one-shot kill; it seemed like a good idea.

We’ve looked at a lot of different things. At the time, we were looking at what EMC and some other vendors could do. We were definitely looking at HP, around some of their server stuff and some of their server integrated storage server solutions. But, FlexPod is where we ended up.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is reliability. We're in banking, so we are looking for something that's going to be stable and secure.

As long as it's within your budget, it's a great one-shot deal that allows you to really have an integrated platform that you can just build off of.

It's definitely an expensive solution, but it has been a really robust solution. We know what we get with it. We definitely like the vendors teaming up and having a more integrated solution.

Obviously, the most valuable feature is the fact that it's one SKU. Basically, if we have an issue with any one of our features – whether it's VMware, Cisco or the NetApp – they pull everybody together and they work together to solve the issue. It's a one-stop shop. Any issue we have, it's not a matter of that vendor, this vendor or the other vendor. We make one call, they all pull together and they fix it.

FlexPod has just simplified it, really. As I’ve mentioned, they all work together. We’ve had it verified that it works together. We know we don't have any sort of device issues, driver issues and so on. We know that if we upgrade the NetApp, the UCC is supported, the Cisco switches are supported. If we upgrade the Cisco switches, we know that they've verified that the version we're going to is going to work and we're not going to have any issues. It makes upgrading much simpler, more secure, safer for us.

My one little pet peeve with all of them is that it's still multiple interfaces. I went to a UCC seminar and they said something like, "Use UCC to run everything." You go to VMware and I know VMware's going to run everything. You go to NetApp and they say something like, “No, no, no. NetApp's going to run on everything.” It would be nice if someone could create a pane that does it all.

It’s not because we purchased each component on our own and had it verified. We've actually bought two FlexPods recently for our voice mail implementation, switching over from Avaya, I think, to Cisco. We bought mini FlexPods for that. There still isn’t a single pane.

When I went to the Cisco UCC seminar a couple of years ago, they said something like, "We can run PowerShell scripts against it, so you can build your structure.” If someone in UCC wants to provision storage, they can do it from that pane. With VMware, you have the SMVI interface. I've gone to the NetApp Insight conference for three years now. The first year, I went to an SMVI session where the guy said something like, "No, no, no; SMVI's going to do everything for you, from VMware." There's still that disconnect. That could be improved.

If I go to NetApp System Manager, it would be great if there was a tie-in to UCC, a tie-in to VMware, versus having to go to three distinct apps. Right now, if I provision the storage for VMware, I provision the storage, then I have to pass it off to the VMware guys. They have to go mount it, and then I have to go back to it to set up my SMVI jobs. That part gets a little annoying.

We don't have any stability issues. No problems there. It's just solid.

We didn't buy the actual FlexPod as a unit. We got it verified as a FlexPod. We actually kind of built it piecemeal. We bought the individual components and then had it verified for FlexPod. We've actually had no issues expanding that, growing any portion of it, whatsoever. We actually added 20 UCC blades; no issues. Since I've been there, in two years, we've gone from 1.5 PB to 3 PB; again, no issues, no worries.

We use technical support all the time. They're very good. I've not had to deal with the whole TAC issue, with all of them pulling together. We actually did just have an issue with one of our UCC upgrades on one system. We made one phone call. NetApp got pulled in, VMware got pulled in, and Cisco got pulled in. They figured out the issue and they solved it. In that respect, the support's fantastic.

We actually have an account manager that's dedicated to us. Any time we don't get an answer right away, we can get to her and she escalates it. We get our answers pretty quickly.

I've actually been working with NetApps for 15 years now, way before FlexPods; the 800 series, way back when; had a StoreVault for a little while and then the 2200 series. Working with Icon is my first leap from the small business to a global enterprise.

Go with it. Seriously. There are a lot of solutions out there. Converged infrastructure's trying to push its way in. We've looked at it. Maybe for a small company starting out, it might be okay but it won't scale to the level that the FlexPod can scale to, have the same performance, and guarantee that you're going to have it all work together.

It does what it says it's going to do. It makes life much easier all around. It's not a solution where you have to sit there and say, "Is this switch going to work with this system?" The systems are more complicated, they’re more complex, the bandwidth is faster. Anytime you have an issue or a mismatch in config, hardware, drivers, and so on, you're going to have a big issue down the line. Being able to be in a FlexPod, where they're sitting there saying, "No, if you buy this piece, you buy this piece and you buy this piece, we guarantee it's going to work," that's a huge, huge plus.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are responsiveness and ease of use; those two are the biggest. The technology's pretty similar across the board. They all do what they say they're going to do. I haven't worked with EMC. I hear that, for each level, you need to know different commands, different stuff. With NetApp, being able to go from a 2200 series to an 8040 series with the same commands is fantastic. I like that, and they are very responsive. Ease of use, responsiveness and performance, of course, but, as I’ve mentioned, they all do what they say they're going to do, pretty much.

For our company, the FlexPod solution really hit a sweet spot because it leveraged existing technologies we had with new blade server technology and NetApp's scalable, expandable storage.

We were due for a server hardware refresh, and so we examined solutions from several vendors. We worked out an impressive deal with Cisco to go along with NetApp, who we're already a customer of and VMware vSphere. When we brought that all together, things just fell into place.

Management is still by separate screens. I need to go to NetApp to manage the enterprise storage. I need to go to the vCenter client to manage VMware, and I've got the UCS Manager. My best hope is some kind of combined client in the future.

We've been using FlexPod for just over three years.

We've had one stretch of downtime. It was very short. Unfortunately, it happened on a weekend, and it was related to the failure of a hardware DIMM in one of the blades. Our partner and Cisco worked very quickly to remedy that.

I can give you a perfect example of how this FlexPod solution is scalable. When we first put it in, we had our baseline activities WE wanted to do. Then shortly afterwards, the company decided to go to JD Edwards as a ERP system. We needed to buy additional compute resources. It was quite simple to buy another chassis, some more blades that were aimed for that solution, and buy additional shelves of disk and just connect it to our NetApp filer.

The support we've got from NetApp has been pretty flawless. If something has gone wrong, it's usually been something like a disk fails. For enterprise storage, that's a given, but we've not had any issues where we've had any appreciable downtime outside of scheduled maintenance.

It is complex. I would recommend to anyone considering a FlexPod to get a partner who has done it before because with FlexPod there's a lot of work up front, but if you get it right up front, everything beyond there is smooth sailing.

I mentioned earlier that we added additional chassis and blades. Because we had done the work ahead of time, set up the templates and profiles for the blades, it was very simple to just insert the blade, power it on, apply that profile, and it's up and ready to go.

I look for a vendor with an established history of innovation of stability. That's one of the things with NetApp and Cisco. They're leaders in innovation in their fields. I'm entirely confident in the solutions I have with them today and the solutions they're going to provide tomorrow.

Recommendation to peers: I would recommend that they would really regret it if they didn't at the very least invest in and consider a FlexPod solution.

I'd give it firm 9.5, simply because I don't believe in giving tens out. Literally, it's been in our situation pretty flawless.

Our organization relies on it as the backbone of our infrastructure, which we use to provide services to multiple clients in a multi-client environment.

While I don't have exact figures, there are definite savings in terms of capacity, particularly when using an all-flash storage solution. We may be achieving around a twenty to thirty percent reduction in capacity usage. The familiarity with the architecture has improved troubleshooting, as we now know precisely where to focus our efforts, particularly when dealing with performance-related issues.

Managing the system is straightforward, and we find it easy to handle overall infrastructure upgrades. The main advantage is consolidating everything into a single rack, which helps optimize power consumption, especially in CRM.

Perhaps having a unified interface for managing the entire company could lead to improved efficiency and performance.

I have been using it for eight years.

Once it's installed, it remains stable. Hardware failures are infrequent, aside from the occasional need to replace components.

It is scalable, allowing us to expand our workload capacity.

I'm quite impressed with the support provided by NetApp. They are incredibly responsive, and you can expect immediate assistance. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We used NetApp in combination with HP products at my previous company. This combination worked well, but FlexPod offers more in terms of operational simplicity, making it easier to manage and operate.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Regarding the architecture, the connectivity involving switches, servers, and other components is quite straightforward

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We use FlexPod XCS to provide primary storage for production data. 

The tool's most valuable features are the flexibility and ability to adapt to redundancy. 

FlexPod XCS' pricing could be cheaper. You need to find the right person for support. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

The tool's stability is rock solid. 

FlexPod XCS is scalable and flexible. 

FlexPod XCS' support has always been there for us. 

Positive

We evaluated HP, Dell, IBM and Cisco. 

The tool helps to save TCO by consolidating our workloads into smaller footprints. 

FlexPod XCS helps us save money. 

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution suits converged infrastructures, where the customer gets a complete system with Cisco servers, NetApp Storage, and Cisco switches.

FlexPod XCS needs to improve its pricing. 

I have been working with the product since September. 

The tool's pricing is fair. 

The tool is recommended for companies with an employee count between 50-500. Bigger companies look for individualized solutions. You must look for a different solution if you have a complicated or bigger infrastructure. I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

Things got a lot faster. We can pull and test in DEV systems much more rapidly and are clearing up a lot of DBA time. In the past, every time we tested it, we needed to be refreshed. In the past, it would take a day of our DBA's time, and now it's just point, click, and ten minutes later it's done.

FlexPod has improved our application's performance. It is now ten times as fast. 

Unplanned downtime incidents have decreased. We've had two and a half years with zero downtime. 

The most valuable features are the reliability and tools such as SnapCenter and SnapManager. We use them a lot. They make life easier.

On the surface, validated designs for enterprise apps are not that important but it's knowing that they work, and if they don't work, I can get support for them. We did have some pretty nasty bugs early on, around four years ago, but we haven't had problems.

It is 100% stable.

I don't have any problems with scalability. 

Support is able to fix our problems but we don't use them much. 

I haven't had many problems, so FlexPod's unified support hasn't been that important. But if I did have a lot of problems, it would be important. I'd rather just not have problems, so that's a good thing.

It worked for me at my last company so we went with FlexPod. It's what I know. It's what I trust, it's comfortable, and it's worked well for me in the past.

It was more expensive than others but the reliability in the tools has saved us money in that regard, so it's worth it.

It is more complex than just basic storage systems. That's intimidating to some people but it works well for me because I've learned it, I know it, I've been using it for ten years and it's not a big deal to me. But it is intimidating to some people and if you push past that, and just learn it, it is worth it. Especially for the additional tools and the environment it allows you to utilize.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. Not a ten because it could always be cheaper, it could always be faster.