HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We use VMware for the authorization and 3D rendering for AutoCAD for architecture projects. We run several databases on websites and so on - so normal activity.

We get good performance with HPE ProLiant DL Servers. They are really stable. We run all our applications smoothly. We have no problem at all.

In terms of what could be improved, if I could have faster processors with less cores, that would be good. I know that they have a new series with AMD processors, but I have currently no access to them. This would be nice, because we need faster processors for rendering. It is more interesting than having a lot of cores. Overall, I do not see any particular improvement needed, because I think that they are already at the edge and ahead of the competition.

In the next release, I would like to see to more power, because the next generation will always require more computing power, but I'm sure that they are already doing their best for this.

They have a management solution, HPE OneView, but I didn't implement it because at the beginning it can be a bit difficult and we only have a small set of servers. So it was too much work for not enough return. So it could be simplified with better results to have a better return with this.

We are using ProLiant DL380 Gen10 and Gen9 servers.

Because I belong to a small service and we are obliged to use big contracts directly from the European Commission, these were the servers that were in that contract. At the beginning it was not my choice to use HPE, because we were working with IBM, and I was really happy with those servers. But I see that HPE servers are really nice also, and we have had a really good experience with them, so I'm happy with them, too.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers is terribly stable. We have no down-time.

Thanks to VMware, we can always add more virtual machines and then a new server if we need to have more. Because we have big processors and a lot of memory, we have a SAN also, so it's really scalable in that way, but it's not related to HPE. Any server could be scalable in that kind of structural combination with VMware and so on. So it's not related to HPE by itself.

We have not had any issues with HPE technical support. I had a problem with a tape backup, and they reacted immediately, and the next day it all was up and running normally. So I'm really happy with the after-sale service.

We previously used IBM. But I have not touched IBM in years, so I don't know how they compete, and they sold their servers to Lenovo, so I don't know how it evolved. But I'm really happy with HPE now.

At the beginning, the initial setup was a bit difficult because there was a learning curve, but now it's easy and with HPE it is really easy to update the servers. We don't have a lot of servers. We are a small service and we have only five to six servers, but a lot of virtual machines, and it is really easy to upgrade the servers. In combination with VMware you can move your machine, so you have no interruption in the service. It's really easy to do. It can all be done remotely thanks to iLO, so you have a good management. iLO processor is a bit slow. though, it could be faster.

The street price is probably really expensive, but at the Commission, we benefit from a good rebate, so we have a good price. I don't know the price of the competition because it is in a contract. I didn't compare. When I look for some parts, I see that it could be really expensive to have the same servers that we have.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give HPE ProLiant DL Servers an eight.

At present, we are using Gen 7, 8. We have used Gen 10 for some of our customers.

We use the solution for providing hotel support. We're into the hotels of mostly Windows operating system, Oracle and SQL database.

Performance and reliability are the most valuable features. 

We have encountered problems. The most pressing issue is that downloads depend at present on the current period. Secondly, in respect of the iLO access license page, iLO features should be included with the server. 

I have been using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for more than 10 years.

The scalability is fine.

HPE technical support is sufficiently good. Support as a side of the business can be purchased. 

The initial setup was easy.

The deployment time varies with the configuration, something which does not take more than two hours. While installing the operating system is a discussion of its own, the actual configuration is easy to do. 

We did not make use of consultants or resellers for the deployment. 

The size of the staff required for the deployment varies with the configuration. It takes just a day to install a single server, but nearly two or three days if making use of visualization and multiple operations. 

The solution comes with a one time perpetual license which is included with the server. It entails costs beyond that of the standard fee. 

The solution is mostly deployed on private cloud. 

I can safely state that we have more than 100 users making use of the solution, since we have installed more than 10 or 20 servers to different locations.

The basic package can include iLO features.

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

We are using it for serving the VMware environment and creating all of our virtual servers and desktops.

The GPU units, processor speed, and capabilities are most valuable. Desktop video conferencing is also valuable. It supports desktop video conferencing much better for graphics.

They should work with Microsoft to make licensing costs better. That's because the physical servers have processors with all these cores, and Microsoft now licenses Windows virtual server desktops based on the number of cores and the serving servers. So, if you got to build 10 or 20 servers on that desktop, you got to license them all with Microsoft. They should have a partnership with Microsoft to decrease the virtual licensing of servers in partnerships so that when you purchase the servers, you also get licensing for Microsoft on top of them. That's because it gets very expensive to license virtual operating systems to run on physical servers.

I have been using this solution for 10 years, but these are refreshed. So, they're new. We have hardly used them.

It is solid. We didn't face any issues.

Its scalability is great. We have 150 users, and it is being used heavily. We are taking every bit of life out of it we can. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

Their technical support is great. It is fantastic.

We have only used HPE.

It is easy. Getting them up and running is a piece of cake, but getting the VMware environment operation on them is very complicated.

It has been a couple of months so far, and we're still working on it.

We are implementing it in-house. We are growing that skill internally. I got a rockstar guy doing all that. I don't do it on my own. 

For its maintenance, we have one network administrator.

They need to work with Microsoft to make the licensing costs better and more efficient.

It is a good product. I would rate it a nine out of 10 because it has good support and good performance.

The robustness of the design of the server is the most valuable. HP servers are easy to use and user-friendly. The server is not complicated, and it is easy to use ILO systems.

In DL 500 systems, the flow of air is not good enough, and some components get overheated. IBM systems have better airflow and scalability. 

We have a data center that has limited physical space. Therefore, we need to maximize the processing or compute systems that we use. In HP servers, such as DL 500, there are only four processors, whereas IBM servers, such as SR 916, have eight processors.

We don't get any support from HP because of our geographical location. We solve all problems ourselves by doing research on the internet. It would be good to get HP support.

We have been using HP products for six or seven years. We use HP Proliant DL 300 family and DL 500 family and blade servers like Enclosure C7000.

It works fine for general use or specific use of most enterprises, but for mission-critical servers, I don't think it is the best fit.

IBM systems have better scalability.

In our company, we have about 4,000 users. We also have a lot of outside users.

We haven't had any technical support yet because our country is not in the technical support area.

We have been using HP products from the beginning.

In the latest versions, such as G9 or G10, we have a very user-friendly installation. It took about 30 minutes to 1 hour. RAID is easy to install, and so is the server, but in earlier products or versions, it was somehow challenging. 

I deployed it myself. We have about six persons for the deployment and maintenance of the servers. They are system administrators for physical servers. For virtual environments, we have different teams to administer the use of our environment.

We have ILO licenses. We use this feature.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers are easy to use and suitable for mid-range users. HP has other products for enterprise users. I don't compare them with this family. We had the physical servers for all services, but now we are migrating to virtual servers using VMware.

I would rate HPE ProLiant DL Servers an eight out of ten.

They should improve the solution's built-in quality.

We have been using the solution for two decades.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is very much scalable. It is possible to deploy and merge more servers to it. But the scalability varies depending on the particular model requirements.

The solution's customer support service needs improvement. The team responds immediately but could be more knowledgeable about various issues.

There are different warranty models available for technical support with the vendors. However, it affects the business workflow because the response gets scheduled according to the subscription plan.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup is straightforward. We need to follow the basic steps.

HP has come up with the GreenLake model. Wherein they set up private clouds using CapEx and OpEx models for customers. They also provide integration with other networking and security components.

I advise others to follow the basic instructions for deployment. Also, they should learn about the solution's framework and features while making a purchase decision. I rate the solution as a seven.

We have several HPE ProLiant DL Server models in use, DL360, 380, and 580.

We use the servers for multiple business services.

The quality and the technical support are the most valuable features.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I am currently using HPE ProLiant DL Servers.

The solution is scalable.

The solution is expensive.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

We use ProLiant servers to host our solution. We have around 150 users. 

We have had issues with ProLiant's intelligent provisioning. Sometimes, the drivers do not come up, so we have to install them manually. 

We started using ProLiant a few months ago.

HPE ProLiant is stable. 

HPE ProLiant is scalable. 

The setup can be complex or straightforward, depending on the server model. One person can complete the deployment in about four days. 

I rate HP ProLiant DL servers eight out of 10. I recommend HP ProLiant. It's a robust and scalable product. If you're having problems with the drivers, you can go to the HP forums and get some help. 

We use the solution as a second node backup.

Compatibility is the best feature of the solution.

The technical support response time has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for 13 years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

We have 8,000 users.

Technical support sometimes takes time to resolve the issue.

Positive

We used IBM servers and switched to HPE ProLiant DL Servers because of the better price.

The initial setup is easy. I give the initial setup a ten out of ten. The deployment took between one and two days.

Three people were used for the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house with the help of an external consultant.

I give the cost a ten out of ten. We pay an annual licensing fee.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We require two people for the maintenance.

I recommend the solution to others.