HPE OneView Reviews

The typical use case for HPE OneView addresses a shift from manual monitoring, where clients needed to log in to the server every hour. After integrating everything on HP Service Manager and HP OpenView, only the escalated tickets needed to be resolved when the server crossed the threshold limit.

One of the best features of HPE OneView is that you get a complete architecture with a single click.

The analytics and monitoring tools in HPE OneView are superior to other network monitoring platforms such as Nagios. The features include multiple modules that allow you to create and write your own scripts based on your requirements for different servers such as database servers or tapping roaming servers. There is more feasibility when using HP Service Manager because, unlike other tools with predefined standards for script writing, we have the option for customization as per our choice, and dashboard reports can be customized.

From the dashboard and reporting perspective, HPE OneView could be improved by having multiple modules rather than just a single customization option.

I have experience with HPE OneView for around three years.

HPE OneView is a stable solution that works efficiently. I haven't faced any issues while using HPE OpenView.

HPE OneView is a scalable solution since you can integrate any number of servers based on your license.

The technical support for HPE OneView rates as an 8 on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is the worst and 10 is the best.

Positive

The initial setup of HPE OneView is simple and not very complex.

The solution is usually deployed on-premises among clients. We have our system on-premise with an HP support team who has helped us with the integration part and the migration from manual to automation. These aspects are managed by the HP team.

I was not involved in the costing and purchase order because we have a separate procurement team who handles that and they are more versed with it.

Regarding the integration capabilities of HPE OneView with platforms such as VMware, SAP, or other platforms, I work for Telecom VAS servers, for SMSC, CMC, and CRB. We already have an HP team in place who has written a script for one server, and we need to replicate the same script on the rest of the servers in the same VAS domain. I rate HPE OneView a nine out of ten.

Neutral

Positive

I'm using this solution for Windows and Linux servers, backup servers, and Oracle database servers.

We're using a mix of two versions. We have version 7 and version 6.60.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

There are currently six people using this solution in my organization. We currently don't have plans to increase usage.

I mostly use HPE OneView with the service pack for ProLiant updates. It's nice that we don't have to go in and do this work on-site. The ability to connect to iLO from OneView is pretty handy.

Firmware compliance is one of the most valuable features. It tells us what firmware a server should be upgraded to.

The update process could be faster. Specifically, it would be great if we had the ability to reapply the server profile faster.

Sometimes it can be slow, but it works pretty well overall.

I have used OneView for about eight years.

I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

I would rate technical support as eight out of ten.

I've been involved in various upgrades. It's pretty easy to set up with vCenter. We just push out an appliance template in vCenter. We run ours on virtual servers.

Deployment can be done by just one person. The number of people needed for maintenance will depend on your server inventory. If you have more than 100 servers, you will need three to five people. If you have 500 to 1,000 servers, you will need a team of 10 to 20 people.

Implementation was done in-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

I would rate the cost as six out of ten.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. 

My advice is that it takes a lot of patience to learn. There's a lot of trial and error involved.

We can configure the HPE server with OneView. We can add VLAN and update it.

The product does not work well. The logs are not proper.

I have been using the solution for two years.

We did not face any problems with the tool’s stability. We upgraded the product twice in the last two years.

The tool is scalable. We have ten users. The product is used twice a week.

The initial setup was not difficult. The deployment took one day.

We did the deployment in-house.

We use Ansible for automation.

The product is good. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution has a lot of use cases. The solution is used for implementation and configuration for all devices, creating all structure, and infrastructure configurations, like logical, interconnected groups, enclosure groups, and also, the device connection. The solution is also used for production troubleshooting or change, certificate, and authentication, If you set the infra, you install everything in one shot. You just need to implement devices like Blade or compute notes in Synergy. 

The most valuable features are the composable structure, infrastructure, and automation. The automation allows a complete implementation of a server with an operating system from start to finish by providing playbooks using the Rest API, and codes, from Ansible and using them towards the solution. The composable infrastructure allows you to move a profile, create a new network and have everything in one place.

The technical support for the solution can be improved by adding more knowledgeable people and speeding up their response times. I would like to see updates that are considered critical to users actually labeled as critical updates by HPE.

The solution's console can be improved by making it more user-friendly and adding the capability to filter the reports out using only the information required. I would like to be able to send only one ticket instead of three for the same issue this way I can translate it from Rest API to for example a JSON file with the correct data and send it to our ticket system with one click.

I have been using the solution for six years.

The solution is stable for the most part however there have been times when both composers went down and you become blind and can't see any management unless you go to the service console, or connect the server by the ILOM.

I found the technical support for the solution to be slow. There are many times when my requests need to be escalated to the third level because the first two are not able to resolve the issue, and I have to constantly follow up with them.

The previous solution we used was Virtual Connect Enterprise Manager but we had to change because of the automation that is available in the new solution to help with implementation.

The initial setup can be complicated if you are not familiar with enclosure groups, Logical Integrate Groups, networks, and uplink ports. You can also set up the solution using a script by creating the LIGs and network profiles using one script that is input directly into the solution.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The solution is free to use, but if you want the management aspect you require a virtual machine such as C7000 or Synergy which require licenses.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have around 50 people using the solution on a daily basis including operators and architects.

In my opinion, this solution is good for Synergy but in C7000, we are currently only using it for monitoring, because it is not as good as HPE Virtual Connect Enterprise Manager in this case. The solution works fine, but for the C7000 made on or after 2004  the HPE Virtual Connect Enterprise Manager is more suitable or compliant with this environment. If you are using something newer with some old hardware, it can cause some problems.

For someone wanting to use the solution for the first time, I only recommend it if you are using the Synergy Platform and not the C7000 because the Synergy Platform is already using the HPE hardware and you will not run into as many issues. The Synergy Platform gives you the automation and more bandwidth compared to the old C7000 Platform. The Synergy Platform is also more cost-effective because it requires less hardware.

My company used HPE OneView to create a state cloud for the customer, the government. I was the cloud administrator, responsible for the infrastructure, overlaying middleware, and software.

Mostly, my company used VMware for overall orchestration. Whenever there was an infrastructure issue, VMware was not able to tell my company anything, while HPE OneView was able to give information about computing issues.

Through HPE OneView, my team learned that the issue was quite simple and that the configuration was not proper for one of the servers installed. It was easy to see that I had to send in refresh commands because the configuration was either outdated or missing.

The most significant benefit of HPE OneView to me was when I was on holiday, one of the engineers contacted me because he had no idea what to do, so I told him which steps to take. It was way too simple for that engineer because the HPE OneView user interface was easy to navigate.

The easy user interface was what I found most valuable in HPE OneView. For example, if I wanted to know the infrastructure status or I needed to send in any change commands, HPE OneView had simple buttons.

The solution was simple when compared to Hitachi. The HPE OneView interface was user-friendly and straightforward, so I found it very easy to handle the infrastructure in the data center.

The network configuration part of HPE OneView needs improvement. The solution has way too many features, and there's a need for proper configuration indicators to be put in place. For example, I had to put in some network ranges for the IN nodes so that the IPs could be distributed individually.

When you're facing configuration issues, a mandatory aspect is that the IN node should be configured appropriately, which was missing. HPE OneView should consider specific scenarios, which means there should be alerts and configurations that tell you what's going on. I should not have to do it manually to figure out what's happening. HPE OneView needs indicators.

I also want to see automation in the solution, which tells me if what took place was a common error or if a simple refresh should be done for something to work. HPE OneView needs automation to tell you that whenever a specific scenario happens, this is the task you need to do to take care of that particular issue or case.

I've used HPE OneView within the past eighteen months.

In terms of stability, HPE OneView needs proper communication between customers and HPE. You see, it's a solution that you need time to get used to regarding what's going on and what's required. For example, when my company faced an issue and the team talked to HPE, that was the only time the company learned that an upgrade was needed. HPE didn't send any notification, so out of nowhere, HPE OneView suddenly stopped working or became unstable.

HPE OneView is a scalable solution.

HPE OneView technical support is a six out of ten because resolving an issue takes a lot of time. People who support you keep changing, which means you have to explain again and again and again. One engineer should have handled the issue directly.

Neutral

We used VMware, but it couldn't give us information about infrastructure issues compared to HPE OneView.

Deploying HPE OneView was easy.

It took two weeks to deploy HPE OneView. It was a government project, so the process was a bit slow, but typically, one week is enough to deploy the solution.

We used one HPE engineer, two resellers, and a few government officials to deploy HPE OneView.

As my company implemented HPE OneView for a government project and isn't earning any profit, I cannot comment on the ROI you can get from the solution.

When it comes to the government, money is never an issue, so it was excellent in terms of the HPE OneView licensing cost.

You have to pay for additional expenses apart from the standard licensing fees because everything has a price for HPE.

Hitachi was cheaper, but I'd rate HPE OneView cost-wise as eight out of ten.

My company evaluated Hitachi, but it was like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. The company chose the sea, which was HPE OneView.

The interface of Hitachi was very complicated, while the graphical interface of HPE OneView, including its backup features, was easy. Anybody could understand the HPE technology because it was easy. 

HPE OneView was also easy to deploy, while Hitachi had a complicated deployment process, apart from its challenging interface. Though Hitachi had more features than HPE OneView, my company didn't need all the features, and HPE OneView could meet the company's requirements.

My company was a customer of HPE OneView.

I used the SaaS version of HPE OneView.

For the project, two cloud administrators, two network engineers, and two security engineers worked with HPE OneView on various domains.

Two cloud administrators handled the maintenance, but if it was hardware-related or level two, then an HPE engineer was in charge.

What I'd tell people looking into implementing HPE OneView is that because it's an easy solution, your operational costs can decrease. It's straightforward to train a person on how to handle and maintain HPE OneView. The solution is easy to understand in terms of implementing, learning everything step-by-step, etc. HPE OneView has a training module, so I'd say go for it, but you should not go overboard because HPE has a threshold, which means it can also break down easily.

My rating for HPE OneView is eight out of ten because it's a technology that's easy to understand and implement. I would go with it any day, mainly because engineers under me work with HPE OneView very well, so it helped me and saved me a lot of headaches.

We use the solution to manage the server. Also, we have a server profile. Storage pools are there with logical enclosures. Enclosures are there, volumes are there, switches are there, firewall compliance is there, networking, et cetera. Everything is there. We have a general overview of everything we need in one place. 

We like that we can manage all servers from a single frame. 

The initial setup is easy.

Technical support has been helpful.

We have had some hardware issues. We've had issues, for example, with RAM. Sometimes, we have issues with hardware levers inside the box. Usually, engineers have more visibility on this, however. 

I've been using the solution for one and a half years.

We have around 100 people using the solution right now. 

We've contacted technical support in the past, and they have been helpful and responsive. 

Positive

The solution offers a very good, straightforward setup. We had both servers up and running in an hour and a half. 

I'd rate the ease of implementation seven out of ten. There's a lot of stuff we have to manage, which can be time-consuming. 

I don't deal with the pricing or licensing and cannot speak to what the exact cost is. 

We are a customer and end-user. 

We do not update the solution often unless we have issues. We may not be on the latest version. 

The solution was suggested to us, and we chose to work with them based on that recommendation. I'd recommend it to others as well. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten overall. 

My company is a solution provider. Most of the company uses OneView because it is cloud-based management. Financial institutes and telcos mainly use OneView because it's cloud-based.

The solution is deployed on cloud and on-premises. It's a hybrid solution.

We have plans to increase the usage of HPE OneView in the future.

OneView provides a single console, which is manageable without physical access.

Integration could be improved. Sometimes OneView doesn't identify physical hardware.

I have used this solution for five years.

It's stable.

It isn't scalable, but there is multiple physical server integration.

Technical support is very good. There are teams in Singapore and Bangladesh.

Previously, we used a different solution. It wasn't single console management. Using physical, multiple servers and engineers is very complex from the customer's end.

Setup isn't complex. Initial setup is completed remotely.

If a customer has multiple servers, they will want OneView.

This license cost for OneView was $3,000 USD.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. 

The solution is good for customers with multiple physical servers. Overall, the product is very good. The manageability feature is better than Cisco and Dell.

Our company served as a testing facility for the solution where thousands of technicians working on different projects, products, and partnerships.

We used the solution to manage platforms, standalone servers, and enclosure frames. We did not directly install the solution, but rather developed plugins for integration with the VMware virtualization platform. 

For one use case, we integrated the solution with the Synergy frame to manage platforms contained in single or clustered enclosures. 

For another use case, we deployed the solution as an appliance for a virtualization platform, added the enclosures or servers, and called them up via iLO or other management software. 

The hypervisor and cluster profiles make it easy to integrate with VMware. 

The solution could add storage, integration services, and end-to-end support for Cisco switches or other competitor products. 

There is no partner product to manage standalone Dell services so manual connections or Aruba are required. 

I have used the solution for quite a few years. 

The solution is quite stable. I have used the solution for many years so do not have stability comparisons with competitor products. 

There is some dependency because patches and updates are frequently released. It is important to keep things up-to-date for best stability. This is not considered a drawback but rather a standard procedure for most solutions. 

The solution is scalable and I used simulation mode for many enclosures and 400-500 nodes with no inefficiencies. 

The simulation included management of internal scripts and nodes with no physical servers or environment. The solution managed these resources without needing physical nodes to be present. 

Our team did not need technical support because we were able to solve issues on our own. 

Our company was contracted to work solely with the solution and develop multiple servers. We even worked at HPE's headquarters in Texas. We tested any new products, servers, configurations, or architecture with VMware before releasing it into the market. 

The setup is easy and offers two installation options. 

Synergy can be installed via a USB drive that opens automatically.

The solution can also be installed as a standalone that opens a virtual machine within fifteen minutes for completion of IPE-4 or IPE-6 setups. 

User guides are available that include setup overviews and instructions. 

Our company completed implementations in-house. Junior technicians who review user guides can easily understand the concepts of configuration and installation. 

The solution offers two pricing models. 

Synergy does not require iLO licenses but requires the purchase of servers or enclosures that come with the default OneView. 

The older platform requires iLO licenses but does not require the purchase of servers. This platform has problems because it is dependent on old class enclosures and hardware that cannot link or be managed with the solution. 

We were contracted with the solution so did not evaluate other products. 

Before using the solution, read the user and configuration guides which include important information about troubleshooting, recoveries, backups and restores, features, and available support. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for its Synergy platform.