HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We have local storage. We typically use the service for processing. We have a visual solution, and we are connected to the storage directly. In our company, we have around 1,000 virtual machines. We have more than 200 production servers.

We like that the solution is very easy to use. Many companies use it in our market. In Iran, we don't have many options, and HP is one of them. 

It works well overall. 

It can scale.

It's reliable and stable. 

We find the solution easy to set up.

I don't have any information about other servers. I can't compare it to other products. 

I'd like the solution to be a bit more stable. Most of the servers we use are okay. However, sometimes, you need to change the parts. We'd like the solution to be more robust. 

In the past, we've had to buy some RAM and hard drives, and sometimes we find they are refurbished and not actually new, and this is a problem for us in our market. 

I've used the solution for a long time. I've used it for about ten years. 

The solution is stable for us. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches.

I'd rate the stability seven or eight out of ten. The stability, of course, could be a bit better. 

We have 500 people using the solution. Most of them are developers, and they're using it in testing, production, and development environments. We do have plans to increase usage. It's ongoing usage, and sometimes we have to add servers. 

It is scalable. I'd rate the ability to expand eight out of ten. 

We've never dealt with support as we have sanctions against us. We don't have access to support. 

I used to work with Synergy, and we had issues with the blade. 

The solution is easy to set up if you have enough information and experience with it. 

The deployment does not take a lot of time. We prepare all of the virtual software, and we simply add a server to the cluster. We just install it and join it to other servers. We always deploy using direct internet and the local network. It's on-premises. 

There are eight of us that can handle deployment or maintenance. However, we only really ever need two people for the tasks. 

I don't deal with licensing. I can't speak to the exact cost. 

I'm not sure if we are using the latest version of the solution. I am familiar with the 300 and 500 series.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

We are using the solution for less critical services.

They should improve the speed of the solution's processor. A core banking service like ours needs faster processing for our central server. We have to run an extensive process half yearly. The solution takes more than 24 to 30 hours to complete it. Ideally, it should take six to seven hours. Our industry is growing daily with an increase in the number of customers. Thus, we plan to move to a solution with better processing speed.

They should build risc processors with high speed. Additionally, they should reduce the prices as it is a significant concern for developing countries such as us.

We have been using the solution since the year 2012 or 2013.

It is a stable solution.

We have around 15-20 users of the solution in our organization.

The solution's customer service is good.

The solution's ROI is worth it for mid-level services.

The solution is not highly-priced, but it is more expensive than Dell.

The solution has a good performance ratio. I rate the solution as a seven.

We primarily use the solution as a server. We use it for hosting Oracle databases. 

The management console is very good. It allows for a wide variety of management capabilities. It's very easy to use. I can get analytics as well. I can see the performance and look up bottlenecks.

The availability is very good. 

It offers the best performance for my workloads. It offers very nice flash arrays. 

The configuration is pretty good. 

It is stable. 

I do not have any notes for improvement. I don't have a lot of visibility on every aspect at the moment. 

The setup could be a bit easier. 

The initial configuration process could be simpler.

I've used the solution for about six months. 

The solution is stable, and we are happy with it. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten in terms of reliability.

We haven't looked into scalability. We don't have a growing workload. In terms of increasing capacity, such as CPU, it's fine. Scaling out, for example, adding multiple nodes, I haven't tested as that wasn't in the scope of our use case. 

Technical support is hard to gauge. I haven't dealt with them just yet.

I've worked with IBM servers in the past as well. These servers are easier to deal with and set up. In this current organization, this is the first solution we are using.

The initial setup is not easy yet not over difficult either. It's easier than, for example, IBM servers. It's more out of the box. There isn't so much configuration needed. 

I'd rate the ease of the process seven out of ten. 

The deployment took around six months for us to deploy everything. It took a while to get the hardware. 

We had a team involved in the implementation. 

We had some assistance from HP with the configuration. 

We're investing in the hardware, and we're not really seeing any ROI at this time. The nodes aren't doing much. We're only using it for a couple of databases. We're not using it to full capacity just yet.

The pricing is not something I deal with. I don't have an idea of the exact cost.

We are end-users.

I would definitely recommend the solution to others based on how well it has worked for me in the past. I'd happy with its capabilities.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'm part of the engineering and implementation team. I'm not an end user of HPE ProLiant DL Servers, but I know the product features and can use HPE ProLiant DL Servers. I look at the documentation, so I know what to do, and if something is missing, people can come to me, and I try to solve the issues at my level.

The product is used for multiple applications and acts like a CRM solution, though the company is migrating to an HP solution.

What I like most about HPE ProLiant DL Servers is that it gives the support and hardware availability that my company requires.

The documentation for HPE ProLiant DL Servers has room for improvement. It should be updated. For example, it says on the documentation that this specific product or part number is supported. Still, when you ask the HPE team, the reply is that it's not supported, so HPE should update the information on the documentation.

I've worked in the company long, so my experience with HPE ProLiant DL Servers is around seven years. I'm still working with the product.

The product is stable, but it has room for improvement. I had a few cases where HPE ProLiant DL Servers kept restarting, which was a bit problematic.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers is scalable, but when your project has a considerable volume, that's the time you'll face an issue with the product. It needs to be more scalable. The product needs to manage projects with substantial volume well.

The technical support for HPE ProLiant DL Servers is okay, but the documentation is incomplete. For example, the technical guides should have information not just on new features but information on products that HPE ProLiant DL Servers support and cannot support. The guide should also tell you whether you can design a high-performance solution. I have a client asking for support and information like the ones I mentioned, so HPE should have this on the documentation or guide.

The initial setup for HPE ProLiant DL Servers is straightforward, and the HPE team also helped my company set up the product, so that's good for my company. Still, sometimes, if HPE doesn't support your hardware, then the HPE team cannot help you set up HPE ProLiant DL Servers.

Right now, the product supports one application on one hardware within my company, so once you complete the testing, the company can go ahead and use HPE ProLiant DL Servers, so deployment only takes a little time.

My team implemented HPE ProLiant DL Servers with assistance from the HPE team.

Another department handles the  HPE ProLiant DL Servers licensing, so I have no information on product costs.

HPE is the vendor that supplies my company with HPE ProLiant DL Servers and other HPE hardware. My company provides the solution to end users.

Thousands of applications run on HPE ProLiant DL Servers, so it has millions of users.

I recommend HPE ProLiant DL Servers if you get more information about the product first. You must go to the HPE technical staff and ask how you can scale HPE ProLiant DL Servers for your architecture and also find out if HPE supports your architecture before making your decision.

My rating for HPE ProLiant DL Servers is eight out of ten. Its documentation could be better.

We use ProLiant servers for Enterprise Asset Management services.

HPE service in Taiwan is quick and professional, and ProLiant is cost-effective compared to Dell. Dell is good for one or two servers, but HPE is cheaper than Dell for a large deployment. Cost is the most important thing in the market.

ProLiant servers could be more scalable. For example, some models can only contain four hard drives, but many of our customers expect six. If they were to add another extendable hard drive slot, it would be easier to sell the servers to our customers. 

I have used ProLiant servers for two years.

I rate HPE ProLiant servers nine out of 10 for stability.

I rate HPE ProLiant eight out of 10 for scalability.

I rate HPE support nine out of 10. I'm happy with them. They are knowledgeable and professional.

We also use Dell, but we mostly choose HPE servers because of price and stability. I'm currently only selling one Dell server model. It's hard for me to compare the two because I'm not as familiar with Dell. 

I sell HPE most of the time, so I'm more comfortable with HPE's stability. I'm not as familiar with Dell's model in the same price range. I tend to sell HPE unless the customer prefers Dell for some reason. I can't make a fair comparison. 

I rate ProLiant servers nine out of 10 for ease of setup. The installation is straightforward. Most clients only need to give me a server name and IP address. After that, you need to configure virtualization if the customer wants that. They need to do the configuration training. 

HPE is more popular with my clients because of the price. They will generally go with HPE unless another brand in the market can offer the same specs cheaper with the same stability and service quality. Our customers are generally happy with HPE's price. 

I rate HPE ProLiant DL servers nine out of 10. I'm satisfied with the product.

We have multiple use cases for HPE ProLiant DL Servers, such as setting up VDS software.

The most valuable features of HPE ProLiant DL Servers are convenience and the interface is good.

The price of the solution could be less expensive to be more competitive.

I have been using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for approximately two years.

The stability of HPE ProLiant DL Servers is very good.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers is a scalable solution.

We have three to four clients using this solution.

The support from HPE ProLiant DL Servers is good.

I rate the support from HPE ProLiant DL Servers a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used Dell and Lenovo, I found that HPE ProLiant DL Servers are a better solution.

The initial setup of HPE ProLiant DL Servers is straightforward. The full implementation process took approximately six days.

I rate the initial setup of HPE ProLiant DL Servers a nine out of ten.

I have seen a return on investment using HPE ProLiant DL Servers.

There are less expensive solutions than HPE ProLiant DL Servers. However, there is a lot of value in this solution.

The price of the solution could be less expensive.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate HPE ProLiant DL Servers a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in our company and our client's company.

I trust the hardware mostly. 

There are some features like intelligent provisioning, et cetera, which are quite useful.

The ILO for management is great.

It's scalable.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

I want to improve hyper-converged sites. We are mostly working with the DL series, however, now we are trying to work with more hyper-converged.

I've used the solution for more than 20 years. 

We are really happy with HP ProLiant Servers. They are stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

We find the solution to be scalable. 

At this time, we have more than 100 users on the solution. 

We work with clients that have companies that vary in size, from small to large.

Technical support has been great. I have been quite satisfied with their level of assistance.

We use ProLiant Servers and SimpliVity. We've also worked with Dell. The quality of HP is better here in Turkey. It's faster, and they come with spare parts. There's a shorter timeframe to replace hardware if parts are defective. 

How difficult or straightforward the implementation process is depends on the customer's location. We have lots of customers in Turkey. Some of them are complex, and some of them are simple.

We have three admins that can handle maintenance tasks. 

While the price is okay, the price of Dell is lower. 

I'm a reseller. We are HPE partners.

I'd advise users to try HP. It's a good solution. However, it depends on the customer. Some prefer working with Dell. If a company already has Dell infrastructure, we advise them to continue with Dell to have a homogenous environment. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

When you compare hyper-converged with ProLiant, hyper-converged is more available due to the clusters; you can cluster it. However, for ProLiant, you have to find a solution with VMware or something like that, for example,  third-party solutions. That said, on the hardware side, ProLiant has no cluster option.

Previously, I was working as an IT contractor for several companies, so the model depended on the size of the business. They were using the smaller, cheaper series of HP ProLiant servers. My current company is relatively large, so they use rack-mounted DL servers that are designed for bigger companies.

HP servers are deployed physically in your office, and you need to maintain them. You are responsible for keeping them online and servicing the end-users at all times. We have about 1,000 users. It's a hybrid environment. We have the same services on the cloud and on-premises, so they are redundant and faster.

HP ProLiant servers provide redundant solutions for almost everything. You can set up multiple power supplies, with a primary power source and a secondary power supply connected on UPS. If the power goes out in the building, the UPS will supply power to the host at all times. The solution can run on batteries for many hours, depending on your battery and UPS capacity. 

ProLiant servers also offer multiple networking interfaces, so they can be connected to various network equipment concurrently, allowing you to avoid disruptions from the network or internet connections. They are redundant in every area.

I would like to replace a hard drive that might be saved on the fly, on the server that I'm using currently, but I can't do that. I'm forced to power off my virtual machine, turn off the server, disconnect it from the power, replace the drive, rebuild the storage, and power it on again. 

That's a lot of downtime, and it affects the services. I know that HP provides this kind of solution to another series for a bigger budget of course. 

I've used HP ProLiant servers for at least six years, but I worked with a different series in the past. 

ProLiant servers are highly stable. They're redundant in every area. We have counted on them for years, and we are satisfied with them.

I would say ProLiant servers scale well. Servers come with multiple storage loads that you probably won't ever use, but they are available to extend your storage if necessary. 

They have removable power supply interfaces that let you extend your redundancy. This applies to CPUs. You can add CPUs, memory, etc. 

They have been using ProLiant since before I joined the company. I don't know why they decided to use HP. However, I've used Dell servers as well. Personally, I think HP servers are easier to implement and maintain. Maybe that's why.

Setting up ProLiant servers is straightforward. In the past, you needed deep knowledge to configure a server from scratch, but now they have a temporary web interface that allows you to connect to the server and configure everything on a wizard-like installer. If you know what you want to achieve, the implementation is easy.

Once you get the HP part from the vendor, it takes a couple of hours to put it on the rack, install the hard drive and CPU, install the operating system, and connect it to your network.

You only need to pay for the hardware, but you can also purchase a license for Integrated Lights-Out technology, which gives you the option to connect to the server like you are physically on site connected with the mouse, keyboard and screen directly on the server. 

It's an extra feature that you need to pay for, but we are not using it. It's an amazing feature, but I have no idea how much the license costs.

I rate HP ProLiant DL Servers 10 out of 10 because I never had a breakdown in six years, and the price is decent. ProLiant gives you something that's stable, reliable, and powerful for an excellent price.

The only thing that we might need is an extra interface to connect the server to the network with the fiber instead of a copper connector. It's something that we never did. And I would advise someone to implement this from the beginning because it might be a bit hard to configure. It will be fantastic if you do it before it goes into production.