HPE BladeSystem Reviews

The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs. The longevity of the system that it creates as well. Right now, we only have our job site, but we'll eventually grow into our large building, and the scalability of the BladeSystem is pretty endless. Now with the new technology like Synergy, it's kind of an offshoot of that almost, and I'm looking forward to utilizing even the Synergy in that whole environment as well. Especially now that the management software can manage all of those platforms.

I like the BladeSystem. I've been a fan of the BladeSystems for a while, since when they came out way back in the day. My first BladeSystems I used were IBM and then HP. I liked the density. A lot of servers in one rack. There's the backplane. We get a lot of throughput in speed and the ease of attaching it to our networks is very good about the BladeSystems. It's less of everything. It's less cabling coming out of the BladeCenter, so it's easier to manage, it's just a cleaner system.

I was looking at the HPE Synergy. What I see there is it's the next evolution of that whole BladeSystem. It pretty much puts compute, it puts storage, and it puts memory all in one pool. It's being managed by the one management module and so it's basically the whole pool data center resource. It also gives the flexibility of utilizing it in a fully virtualized environment or, if you need a physical server, you can utilize a physical server as well. Then extend out to some of the older devices like the c7000 or something, can enter into that whole resource domain. That's compelling as well.

It's very stable.

In my past at a couple director positions I've held, I've utilized Cisco's UCS product quite a bit. I've had experiences with that from when that product first came out. They're both very good systems. I think Cisco makes a solid product there. It might be coming to its life's end now. As things like Hyper Converged is starting to really take off and I like the slant that HPE has with the Synergy platform. That's almost like taking a BladeSystem or UCS kind of technology and moving it to the next level. That's what I see HPE doing with Synergy.

It was very easy.

I had HPE do it.

Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem.

• ILO for great control over servers remotely
• HPE SIM for efficient monitoring and inventory of servers
• FlexFabric for its flexibility and ease of use

• Inventory management
• Firmware and driver maintenance
• Server monitoring
• Server provisioning and uptime

I would like to see better scalability.

We have been using this solution for five years.

There were no stability issues.

Sometimes there are scalability issues with relatively older generations.

I would rate technical service as moderate to good.

We used a solution previously and we switched because of cost and lack of passion by regional sales and marketing teams.

The setup was straightforward.

Do a market survey before and bargain well.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

If planned well in advance, it will make your life easier.

The longevity and modular factors allow for upgrading and continued usage. It also has a pretty solid design and management.

Getting more out of what you purchased. Like the virtualization of the product and especially the virtual connects allows for better efficiency in usage. There is also easy management and easy upgrades.

It is nearing the end of its development, so I think the question is a moot point. HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000.

We have been using this solution since the beginning of 2007.

Generally there are no problems with stability. However, updating firmware in the virtual connect in the older days caused issues. But they have been fixed for a while.

There were no scalability issues. When upgrading to higher speeds, the backplane could be problematic. For example, when going to 16Gb fibre and 40Gb LAN requires one to go from the G1 and G2 to the later G3. Upgrading to the new 32 and 128Gb SAN is not possible.

Technical support is good to excellent. It is a solid product with a lot of years behind it and a BIG install base.

in the old days, HPE had a horrifying type blade system. (I guess they were all horrible before this blade.) That was a long time ago. The C7000 set the bar for blade systems when it came out.

The setup was quite easy to get going, although the virtual connects were a bit more problematic in the beginning.

Add OneView and ILO advanced to the base product. Don’t adjust the price, but just include them.

You have to look at the newer options now, especially Synergy. Keep in mind that existing servers cannot be used in the new model since it’s a completely new type of product redesigned from the bottom up with new case and everything. If you are adding servers to an existing Blade System, go for that solution since it is cheaper and still allows you to utilize your assuages.

If you are looking for a new system and do not have one in place, see the new products like Synergy.

Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features.

• Ease of Management: It provides a simple way to access and manage the whole blade infrastructure through the onboard administrator GUI, where you can deploy the blades and handle the initial configuration (IPs, firmware for ROM, iLO management).

• Consolidation: It puts all the elements of the modern data center such as power, cooling, connectivity, redundancy, security, compute, and storage into a modular, right-sized and self-optimizing unit with agile intelligence. It includes redundancy for every component and connection inside it, for no single point of failure.

• Connectivity: The simplicity and flexibility in managing the SAN/LAN configuration from a single management interface (HPE Virtual Connect).

• Power and Cooling: It consolidates tremendous power capacity that adapts and optimizes itself, to the most efficient level for any solution. It includes more cooling capacity as well as monitoring and control, that adapt regardless of the performance and density that are thrown at it.

The HPE BladeSystem delivers a modular infrastructure for the data center. The main critical applications and virtualization farm were running on the BladeSystem with great performance and reliability.

It provides a higher connectivity throughput with the new releases.

There is better integration with the third-party solutions and products.

I have used these solutions for around three to four years. We use the following HPE products:

• HPE c7000 Blade Enclosure
• HPE BL460c Gen8 Server Blade
• HPE Virtual Connect of the following:
  
  • HPE VC Flex-10 Ethernet Module
  • HPE VC FlexFabric 10Gb/24-port Module
  • HPE VC 8Gb 24-port Fibre Channel Module

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I would give the technical support a 8/10 rating, although, most of the critical cases are handled by the specialized technical experts.

Initially, we were using the Cisco UCS Blade Server Enclosures. We switched to this product due to the integration with the Cisco Fabric Interconnects and to experience a new technology.

The initial setup for the HPE BladeSystem Enclosure is straightforward and you don't need to be an expert in data center infrastructure.

The prices for the HPE Virtual Connect Modules are expensive compared to other I/O Modules available. It's better to size the solution accurately and identify which I/O Module is needed for your environment (for example, the HPE FlexFabric or HPE Flex-10).

We evaluated other solutions such as Oracle's Sun Blade and Dell's PowerEdge blades.

The implementation and deployment are easy and straightforward for engineers of basic IT knowledge. However, you need extra information and awareness, when configuring the HPE Virtual Connect as they require networking background (such as VLAN configuration and SAN connectivity).

It allows immediate access to the server management and immediate detection of the access logs.

It provides a secure access to the console and reliable administration.

Having implemented this solution, it has enabled to have remote management of the equipment problems, to identify the power for reviewing the status of errors without having to be on-site, but remotely from anywhere required.

I would prefer to have changes in the compatibility of the blade servers with the new ones designed by HPE, as the top team's version does not have it.

I have used this solution for seven years. I have used the following versions of the solution:

• HPE BladeSystem c7000 Enclosure Onboard Administrator Tray 1.7
• HPE ProLiant BL680c server blade G5 2.12 July 16, 2012
• HPE ProLiant BL680c server blade G5 2.06 May 31, 2011
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade Gen8 1.20 Feb 01, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade Gen8 1.20 Feb 01, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade Gen8 1.30 July 18, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade G7 1.20 March 14, 2011
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade G1 2.23 Nov 05, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade Gen8 1.20 Feb 01, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade Gen8 1.20 Feb 01, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade Gen8 1.30 July 18, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade G7 1.65 Nov 08, 2013
• HPE ProLiant BL460c server blade G1 2.06 May 31, 2011

We have not had any problems with the implementation.

The technical support team has very good answers to our concerns and when cases are opened, escalations are done in a timely manner.

I have not used a different solution.

The solution was implemented by the provider, as indicated it was in a simple way.

I'm the infrastructure manager; with regards to the prices, they need to adapt to the current needs of the country. Licensing has always been timely and it is a prompt solution.

The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it.

A couple of those HPE BladeSystem Enclosures can give you a stable and distributed compute resource for a virtual environment.

First of all, there should be a change in the disk bay. Currently, in the case of a disk failure there is a need to remove the whole bay and as a result, to disconnect all the other disks.

I have used this solution for maybe more than four years.

I have encountered a major issue with VMware on Gen8. There is no support for NetQueue, that resulted in network issues with the VMs.

There were no scalability issues.

I was not satisfied with the support. It seems that the support team does not know their products in depth. Their main approach is to upgrade the firmware/drivers and replace the hardware. They are struggling in giving any type of technical explanation for resolving issues. But, there are not many issues that were not addressed by the support team and I always received a solution this way or another.

I have used this HPE Enclosure as a part of the design; we are using this solution from the beginning and have not switched to it from any another solution.

The setup is not simple but if the low-level design is correct, then it is a straightforward implementation.

Their licensing program is pretty simple.

We evaluated other products such as Dell and Cisco Blade Servers.

Pay attention to the HPE's management solution as they are securing the management interfaces of their servers. You need to implement it correctly, otherwise, in a case of a failure, for example, an incorrect network configuration may result in complete loss of the management.

I think the most valuable features that my management usually worries about are price, reliability, and its ability to be repaired and/or debugged.

What would make it better from my point of view is if HPE spent more time on testing with the actual built-in Red Hat Linux drivers, as opposed to always trying to say, "Use our driver."

The stability is pretty good.

It's scaling where we need to go.

The technical support sucks, would be understating it. Because the first line and the second line support tend to give out stupid suggestions that are completely useless, and they aren't listening to anything. It takes a lot of time to get through them, and that is every call I've been on with them. Oftentimes, I've got a very low expectation of HPE, and they go below my expectation a few times.

Initial setup was relatively straightforward.

When it comes to the BladeSystem, what we love about it most is being able to actually manage it using OneView. It's one feature that allows us to fully manage all of our infrastructure using just one application.

We were able to deploy a lot of different operating systems such as VMware and Red Hat Linux, Oracle, Oracle Solaris; also Microsoft's Windows server. All of these are fully supported within the HPE BladeSystem. It allows us to be able to implement and deploy different operating system using one HPE BladeSystem.

I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances.

It's very, very, stable. We've got over 40 HPE BladeSystems and so far we've had very, very few hardware problems. Whenever we have a hardware problem, HPE call us right away about our problem, and somebody works on that problem within four hours of generating a call for any type of hardware or software problem.

You cannot really scale a BladeSystem. If I were using it in conjunction with VMware, then we are able to upgrade or get a higher CPU or memory on a virtual machine or move a virtual machine in a different blade that has a higher CPU and memory. If it comes to that, yes, using other software, scalability is very good.

Technical support is very good. I've opened a lot of calls over the web or by phone with HPE, and I would say that 99% of the time, they respond to the ticket within an hour of opening an issue.

There is no complication at all when setting it up, either setting it up as an experienced user like myself or having HPE set it up for you using their services. No problem at all.

We were based on different hardware vendors. We selected HPE due to the cost of the hardware; also for the scalability of the materials, and the different models that could be inserted or interchanged in a chassis; also the easiness of the deployment. That's how we selected HPE BladeSystem. We also considered Dell, Cisco, IBM, and Oracle.

It's because we've been using it for so many years now. It's been very reliable for us. I would say consult your hardware vendor and discuss with them your needs. Sit down with them. Elaborate what services do you need and decide together. That's how I would say it.

• Easy scalability
• Modular design
• Easy configuration

Before we introduced the solution, we had 24 cabinets, filled with classic rack servers. We had continuous issues with cooling capacity, power consumption for the data center, high availability, and redundancy.

After implementing the BladeSystem environment, we went down to four cabinets only for servers, since it's a perfect platform to host a high-end VMware farm.

Coupled with HP 3PAR SAN devices and peer persistence, I managed to create a 99.99999% uptime environment.

Currently, we have enjoyed an increase in price/performance of 500%, compared to several years ago.

• The web interface is Java based and we had issues with different version of Java. We sometimes need to host dedicated machines with old versions of Java just to run the web administration.
• The LCD panel holds minimal data about the overall BladeSystem and blade server health and error events.
• I would like to see an error reporting feature in the LCD Panel.

I have used it since 2011.

We have not had any stability issues. We haven't had one instance of downtime due to hardware issues of the BladeSystem itself.

We have not encountered any scalability issues. It's extremely scalable. If you run out of resources, just get another blade server and you've added another x amount of RAM and CPU to your environment.

Technical support is good and quick. The engineers sometimes need to consult with experts. I wish the experts would be the front-line support.

This is the first time we have used BladeSystems.

The initial setup was complex because of our HA requirements. The installation of the BladeSystem itself is easy and straightforward.

The modules are hot-pluggable. OA and iLO are easy to configure.

The most complex part was configuring the Virtual Connect module with VLAN tagging, shared uplink sets, and general network configuration.

The web UI is good, but it lacks tips and it's a bit complicated.

For first time users, only buy two BladeSystems and fill them up. They are expensive. Apart from that, you get more than you paid for.

We didn't evaluate others, as we were forced to buy this solution by governmental policies. We are part of the Ministry of Health.

Get to know the product. Spend time studying its ins and outs.

You will be surprised by its capabilities. I would not recommend a touch and go strategy, since that won't bring the systems to optimal capability.

Modular Design: Everything is modular and redundant. Nothing is built-in, from the PSUs to the fans to the modular VCs and SAN modules

I especially value the higher consolidation ratio.

This server comes with up to 2TB of memory which allows us to run more virtual machine on single server. We can leverage it for a higher consolidation ratio.

It would be better if the boot time during POST would be reduced.

I have used it for eight years.

I did not encounter any stability issues. It’s a good product.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

I would give them a rating of 9/10.

We used to deploy IBM Blade Servers. The switch was due to company policy, although IBM products are also good.

The setup is quite easy once you configure the Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) server.

It depends on the order size of other services we select during the procurement phase.

We evaluated Cisco UCS.

It’s advisable to use FlexFabric Interconnect for a converged network.