HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

The most valuable features are its flexibility and stability.

The main benefit was the low price, so it saved us a lot of money.

We are not looking for new features in the DL260. Instead, we are looking at Synergy.

Compared to blade servers, it could use more flexibility to expand with new features, and to connect new storage systems and so on. It’s not so easy and not always possible.

We have had no downtime. It is generally up.

We haven’t really had to scale the product.

Most of the time, technical support was efficient and very fast. Usually, it required a hardware replacement, so it worked every time.

We generally switched from Novell to Microsoft; and then we used HPE. We also previously used Compaq, which I think was part of HPE.

We never looked at Dell or IBM.

The initial setup was very simple.

Buy Synergy. :)

Look for the flexibility of the system; and get everything from one partner.

The most important criteria when we choose a vendor is the range of products available. HPE has a huge range of products: switches, servers, storage systems, and so on.

We find it very easy to train people to use them and their reliability is very high. It’s usually cheaper than the competitor. We don't have any one vendor that we always use, so we tend to go out there and look at the best solution based on metrics such as price, quality, reliability, and HPE usually comes out on top.

Our organization itself is in bit of a transition at the moment. So we're moving towards more up-to-date solutions for our infrastructure. Anything that we do to improve reliability and availability of our services is always good from an IT point of view.

We're looking at things like UCS just now and we are looking for what would blend with our UCS deployment. I know that HPE are heavily involved in that, so it's been a lot of consultation and a lot of fun to get all of that to work together.

Stability is excellent. I've used HPE for best part of 15 years now, including all their data center solutions, and never had any problems. Any problems that do exist are quickly rectified; that's all you need.

Scalability depends on what you buy into. We are scaling out our sales, so it's a bit of legwork to get it done. There are other options to buy into more of a hyper-converged kit, but we haven't yet done that. We're looking at that kind of stuff.

We get our technical support through a third-party.

We are willing to look at anything. Just now, we do have some Dell and some Cisco kit. We tend to go with major suppliers, rather than any bespoke vendors. We certainly don't have any of the kind of model hyper-converged kit, like SimpliVity, or Nutanix. So across the board, it's either HPE or Dell. We went with HPE because their technical support is of a higher grade. You would get more reliability and better support through HPE.

I've used them for over 15 years now and all data-server solutions and there have been issues, but they have always been solved quickly. Dealing with HPE as a company is always nice to do.

In a vendor, good technical support and product reliability are key. If you ask my head of finance, it will be money. Availability, support, reliance, and reliability are absolute.

We've just found them so reliable and used them for so many years. We have found the quality and backup support reliable. They just tend to do what we want to do with them. So, they are very flexible, upgradable and versatile. Sometimes, you do have some issues but they tend to get repaired/replaced/fixed within a good time.

For us, it is more of reliability even though we have hardware maintenance.

Generally, we'll do 10 calls a month globally. With our offices all over the globe, 10 calls in a month are very minimal since we have 600 pieces of DL hardware. It's quite small.

A lot of where they can improve the product would be related to hot flexibility. If you want to change a DIMM, you have downtime to upgrade. It would be good if you could have hot DIMMs and hot CPUs, also for hard disk power supplies and bits. Hopefully, then there shall be no downtime. The biggest problem with our user base is downtime.

Stability is very good. Once the product is in, it seems to work. We do general maintenance. It's good.

Scalability can be a little bit difficult sometimes due to changing of CPUs which we try to over-spec. We don't need to scale up; we tend to replace after three years.

It gives us more because with passing time as technology increases, things get faster and better for us. There is more improvement.

We have looked at Dell and just recently looked at Dell FX2.

We will probably stick with HPE because of the long-time factor that we've had with them and other factors such as reliability and knowing the product. We know we're looking at HPE ConvergedSystem for our offices and that will be the next stage.

I've been in my company for 14 years. Initially we were using Compaq and now moved over to HPE. Thus, the setup took place a long time ago.

Have no doubts you'll be getting a product that will work. It will do what you want, as long as you follow the guidelines and best practices. You should speak to other people. The product will just tick along for its lifecycle. You will get the odd issue but it's fixable.

We've been more than happy with the DL product that we've used. We never buy them when they first come out; we always wait 6-12 months to buy them. Let somebody else do the testing during the first six months, even though they should be tested.

The most valuable features are redundancy, flexibility, and compatibility with operating systems.

The cost and the user experience are two of the main benefits.

In the next release, I would like to see more redundancy of the CPU. That would be great.

The solution is very stable. We have had it for more than ten years, for several generations of the product. It's a very stable solution.

The first version was not so scalable. Today’s versions are very scalable. We are very, very happy with this new version.

We have a maintenance contract for support from the HPE team around the world. We don't use it so much because the solution is very stable. When we do use it, the quality depends on the country. For example, in France, it works very well. However, when we try it in China, it can be a little bit tricky.

We used another solution from another company. However, the cost vs. benefit was not so good. For that reason, we switched to HPE services.

I was involved with the setup. It was very easy to apply.

We worked with Dell and IBM, but we chose HPE.

When selecting a vendor, it's good to have a real relationship in order to get a reliable, ascertainable, and a flexible solution. With this solution, you can close your eyes and you can use it because it's a very stable and personable tool. There is a real relationship between HPE and the customer, and they support you during all the steps you take.

The commonality between the systems is very valuable, and it is very easy to manage.

It helped us a lot because it's a very stable solution.

It's not changing very much in terms of handling from generation to generation. So every time they introduce a new ProLiant generation, it's very easy for our operations team to adopt it; and it's very easy for us to adapt to the new features.

Because of the commonality between systems, we also have a very lean and optimized process for replacing people when resources need to be moved around. I think that's the main benefit of the ProLiant platform.

My personal opinion is that the rack-mount kits in generation four were the best. The current ones are kind of overcomplicated to mount, so I would really like to go back to how the rack mount worked when we had the G4. This would really be an improvement.

It's rock solid. I have never seen a ProLiant server breaking down for no reason.

I think for us the scalability is definitely sufficient. We have the two-socket series and the four-socket series. We did not look beyond that because it's just not in our requirements; but we are fine with what we have.

They are very efficient, fast and friendly. They know their products. It was a good experience.

When I joined the company, we were on Compaq ProLiant and we stayed with it. For HP, the ProLiant series is still a strategic product. If you look at other vendors, say IBM, they even sold the X86 server business. So there are not too many vendors in the business who have a very strategic X86 server series, and HP is obviously one of them.

It's a data center. Things go in and out. I was a system administrator myself many years ago, so I set up a lot of HPE ProLiant systems. They were very easy to set up in the past. They have become even easier. I would say that half of the strength of the ProLiant servers is the software and the additional tools that HPE provides.

IBM fell off our short list of vendors because they just gave up the business.

Dell didn’t have the same level of stability, maintainability, and range of products that we have with the ProLiant series.

Investigate some use case scenarios relevant for your daily business perspective, for example:

• What do you need to do to change defective hardware in your system?
• What do you need to do to upgrade your systems?

Check the workflows:

• How easy is it to change the parts?
• How easy is it to access the server?

Do you have the right documentation already in the server, like it is for HPE; or do you need external sources to know what you are doing?

Stability is the most important feature. We use it for the infrastructure as a service. We need stable service.

I would like to see more standardized management. In the past, there was a lot of mixture between the software and the hardware features.

It is stable and has been for many years. We have used HPE for three or four years and we don't have a lot of complaints.

We buy the biggest one each time and we multiply it by two every year. We need a lot of them. We set them up in clusters close to us, so there are no scalability issues.

I have used technical support, but primarily with warranty questions. We have no issues with technical support at all.

I was involved in the installation. It was straightforward and not complex.

We looked at Dell, Lenovo, and IBM.

We do a mini competition a few times a year and we buy a lot of servers. This is needed in the Netherlands. We started to use HPE.

We are looking for basic functionality and see if the solution conforms with open standards.

When choosing a product, price is an issue. If two products have the same specifications, then we have to choose the one with the lowest price.

My advice is to decide if you want a cheap and bad server, or if you want a stable and good server.

Scalability and being able to customize the service in just the way that we really want it.

The benefits are that we can customize what we want. We're able to tailor the actual service itself to our specific requirements. This is opposed to trying to get something off-the shelf which doesn't quite fit and then we have to make compromises.

I’d like to see a lower price. That's not the whole 20% difference of why I gave it an 8. One of the negative things that we find is that the configuration tools are sometimes not easy to use. That contributes to the detriment of the score.

I would rank scalability at about 80%.

I have used support. There are certain proprietary information elements which are clearly owned by HPE which are always nice to look at when troubleshooting. There are some items that we understand that they can't share. From a technical point of view, it would be nice to have more visibility and scale.

I was involved in the setup. I think our first installation was okay. When we are buying new models, sometimes the support doesn't feel like it's quite there. That might not necessarily be on the HPE side of things. This lack of support might be from some of the products that we use with it.

We go through software purchasing cycles and we know roughly when, in the lifetime, we need to purchase certain key infrastructure components. We also have the ad hoc requests where we need to get a certain per-line, server-specific, full requirements, and then we buy as we need it.

When selecting a vendor, trust is the main issue. I'd suggest others seriously consider HPE as a service solution. Our experience has been pretty positive. Based upon that I, would recommend HPE products.

What is good about HPE servers is that you have a consistent way and how to manage them across all the lines. You don't have to learn something for one type of server and then have to learn something else for a different type of server. If you have different types of servers, you can always build on the knowledge you have and you have a unified way to approach things in configuration, in setting up, maintaining, and so on and so forth.

The organization is always hamstrung by the staff people they have available to run these systems. If you have a trained staff, you don't want to throw all this training overboard just to get a new server. You have an evolving but steadily moving ecosystem of how you get these things set up, connected, maintained and so on, so forth. That's probably even more valuable than just, "Hey, competitor A or B has 2% more efficiency or 2% more power to deliver".

It's always the next generation of hardware, of course: Who does the better job? You also can look at things and say, "Hey, we were going all blades. We were going with virtual connect.”, and do specific things in that way. We learned certain lessons doing that, of course.

For the next generation, we probably won't have that many blades. We will probably revert to rack-mounted servers, but have bigger servers instead of the smaller servers. That also evolves with the workloads you have. Over the period of time we typically run these systems, such as five years, there's a lot of change in what the users request from us. Of course, there are new developments. For example, before we started VDI, we said, “OK, if we want to do VDI going forward, we probably want to incorporate some GPU into that.” That would probably lead to new architecture and then we want to do other stuff like high-performance computing, as well, on that. The next generation probably would look completely different from what we have now.

We have been using HPE servers for a very long time. The current implementation was done in 2013 and 2014, but we have been using HPE servers for 20 years or more. It was not necessarily called HPE at that time but one of the companies they acquired over the decades.

Stability is a non-issue. As long as you don't touch anything, nothing will really happen. If you update everything here and there, you have to really pay attention. We have a complex setup with storage and servers and networking, storage networking and so on and so forth. Once you change one component, all the others might blow up in your face if you don't do it correctly. Especially in the storage space, we rely heavily on HPE to mix and match, make sure that the matrix is correct to do all of the maintenance on that level.

Scaling is fairly easy. With the blades, I think the only barrier here is, once you fill up the enclosure, you need a new enclosure. That's the primary barrier. As long as you can grow inside the enclosure, that's a non-issue. Otherwise, you have a steeper investment, but then again, it scales up from a single server to the full enclosure, to the full rack.

We never had to go that way, though. Everything we did always fit into one enclosure in one rack. We had two of them, spread across sites. Even in a situation where one of our data centers fails, we can still have all of the workload running out of the other data center. By the means of the software stack we have around it, that works without a mishap. You don't really even notice it with the storage and the virtualization layer. That all happens in the blink of an eye, automatically, which is very important for us. It’s also reproducible, of course. And, you can do it backwards, unlike some solutions, where you can failover but if you want to failback, you would need a myriad of highly skilled IT professionals to do that move back with data synchronization, but this solution really does it all.

Support on the hardware side is a little bit more challenging than on other sides because there are so many components involved, if you look at servers. There are many vendors who provide components to HPE. You have to mix and match everything. You really need a professional support organization with that to help you. If you do the wrong thing, do the wrong update, that might hamstring you with the whole operation because you don't get anywhere, anymore.

The setup is quite straightforward. It's really a bunch of servers but, of course, that involves getting all of the components together, having everything configured to order and then having it configured to the software stack. We incorporated HPE partners to do that for us and then we took over and said, "Okay, from now on, we involve this system until its end of lifetime." We went from the one version of the hypervisor to the current version of the hypervisor, and we're going to the next, and the next, and the next. Setting up is the first step but from that point on, you can take it yourself and drive it yourself.

For the blade offerings, most of the competitors have similar capabilities. However, they probably have evolved them only within the last five years, whereas I would say HPE has a much longer runway into that. They have a much more established, esteemed platform there. The C class of BladeSystems is something that's there for years now. I think we have the second procurement of those. At the end of its lifetime, we're running it for 10 years, whereas others have changed their blade strategies two or three times. I think that's the worst thing you can do, if you have to change it on there.

The C7000 and C3000 have been around for 10 years, maybe 15 years, already. Everything that came afterwards, such as Synergy or the Superdome X, they all build on top of that. The C9000 and whatever they call the Synergy enclosure, it really takes the best from the established path and then just adds the latest technology to that.

If you have that knowledge and ability, and you can leverage that, you have a big advantage over all the others who come to the market with a new solution and try to find customers.

For the server technology, most of the features you can nowadays find with most of the vendors, so they're probably at the stage where HPE was five years ago. The ecosystem is so mature and still evolving. There's nothing like, "Hey we have this feature, we don't change it." The management, the procurement, the provisioning, all of that is really kicking off going forward. Probably with the next generation, I’d gave it a higher rating.