HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We use ProLiant servers for VDI and Dell VMs, which are agents for backups and SQL, Oracle, and Mongo DB databases. We mostly use DL360, DL318, DL16, DL518, and other models for combustible systems from HPE.

ProLiant DL servers are the best on the market. The models support an extensive list of Intel processors.

The servers should include OneView for intelligence provisioning.

I have been using ProLiant DL servers for about 10 years.

ProLiant DL servers are stable.

The scalability is good.

HPE support is excellent. I rate their support nine out of 10. 

Setting up ProLiant servers isn't easy, but it's not too difficult. It's a little complicated to install our operating system if you don't have drivers. For example, it's challenging to install with Windows Server and Red Hat. In the case of Windows Server, you need to install intelligence provisioning, but it's not used in most cases. It requires an engineer and a specialist to maintain the solution. 

HPE servers are expensive.

I rate HPE ProLiant DL servers nine out of 10. I recommend HPE servers. It's a good product. If you plan to implement DL servers, you should check the family of the network and storage cards, and you should create a list of components so there isn't a delay in delivery. 

The most valuable features of HPE ProLiant DL Servers are very high quality.

The price of HPE ProLiant DL Servers could improve.

I have been using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for approximately one and a half years.

I have found the HPE ProLiant DL Servers to be stable.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers are scalable.

We have more than 50 clients using this solution.

The support from HPE ProLiant DL Servers is very good, they are helpful.

The price of HPE ProLiant DL Servers is reasonable, but because of covid and other factors, the price could be reduced. The license is paid annually.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

I am a technical manager and have technicians who go out to schools and look at their network. We have two servers that are linked to a SAN and run virtual servers to form a cluster. This is done so that the servers will always stay on even if one of them goes off. 

In regards to the components that you can put into the servers, I feel that HP provides a wider variety of parts in comparison to Dell. For example, there is the ILO which is a network cable that goes into the server and reports back with an abundance of information about the server, even when it is off.

I do not believe that improvements need to be made on the hardware side. 

On the software side, I would like for the management of the server overall (including reviewing its health) to be a bit easier. Right now, we have something that sits on the server to make sure all hardware drivers and other thing are up to date. This is a pain to set up.

We have been using this solution for a couple of years.

I like the stability. There are rarely any issues with the servers.

This is a scalable solution and I am able to put as much RAM in as I want.

We have not needed to contact support as most issues are able to be resolved by our in-house team and have yet to be severe enough to need to contact support.

The initial setup was not complex and took about half a day for one technician to set up. We have one technician who looks after the servers, but there is not much that needs to be done to them in regards to maintenance. Over holiday breaks we perform maintenance checks to ensure that everything is working properly.

We bought the server and desired bits and then had an in-house hardware technician come and put in the bits and install the service software on it through the ILO. 

We are able to get a few years out of the servers.

I like the price of this product and the add-on components. It is cheaper than Dell and is a one-time hardware purchase with minimal ongoing costs.

It is important to note that on some of the servers, you can only insert 2.5 inch drives, so, maximizing the SSDs may be a bit expensive.

Other than that, I would advise working with HP because they have reliable products that rarely have any issues and, when there are issues, they are easily resolvable by us. In the rare event that we cannot fix it, we are able to make returns at no additional costs.

Overall, I would rate the DL Servers a nine out of ten.

We use the servers to run our student information system. It's an accounting package within the bursary of the university.

We are currently on generation 8 or 9. The solution is hardware, so it's deployed on-prem.

Apart from users, there are five people that interact with the hardware directly. There are others who interact with the services that run from these servers. It's a school environment, so there are about 30,000 or more students and staff.

Previously, when we were using Zimbra for email services, it was run locally. We have stopped using that because we subscribe to Microsoft Office 360 email services, which run from the cloud. That has been taken off the servers. 

Now that other applications are being developed, we hope to eventually be able to cater for the different administrative and academic departments in the university. We are hoping that some of this hardware will definitely have to be replaced. Of course, that will depend on the budget and the availability of funds that the university management is willing to make available. But it's going to be a step-by-step thing. There has to be planning and then budgetary provisions to be able to take care of these items.

We are just customers. We don't have a direct link with HPE, but through the HPE product suppliers. We have a new direct now, and in one of the meetings we had, he came up with the idea of finding a way to having that direct contact with HPE or Synergy and how perhaps we could patronize each other in terms of the servers, in terms of PCs for staff and students, and the kind of technical support that we can equally enjoy from HPE.

Where there is a need to actually expand on the capacity, it's easily done, especially when more memory is needed.

We have been experiencing a problem with the power pack. It gets fried and then we have to do a replacement.

There is a challenge sometimes with having quick access to some of these components when you need them. It takes a lot of time to get spare parts from genuine sellers.

You need the memories for servers. They're delivered. You put them in, and the system doesn't come up, so you have to return them. For me, that has been the major challenge.

In the day-to-day running, there's always room for improvement. If you need assistance in real time, it would be helpful if there was such a room where someone could be there and help you solve the problem in real time.

The number of people you are serving is increasing by the day, and they need immediate solutions to their issues. Sometimes you have limitations as to getting solutions to some of these issues that come up, but you are dependent on the information available to you. Being the product manufacturers also, I'm sure they have a lot of solutions to the different issues depending on the feedback they've been able to get from the field all across the world, especially those using their products. I think that would go a long way in helping.

I have been using this solution for more than 10 years.

The main challenge we actually have is the issue of having a good, steady power supply. Whenever there's a power outage, it forces the server to go down. That in itself increases the rate of failure of the hardware. By implication, the services that have been provided are truncated at one point or the other. Management has promised to see how they can intervene in that respect, but that is left to be seen.

The scalability is fine for the limited number of services and the need to actually scale. Because of this same power issue, I had to virtualize where we have to run different services on the same hardware server. That is where the issue of expanding the memory capacity came in. 

In terms of the processor, we have not been able to do that. The reason is because you send for a part, it is brought in, you plug it in, and then there's a mismatch. Then the system doesn't run well. You have to return it. But I think it will expand our memory and expand the storage. We haven't been able to expand or increase the processing and the processor capacity. But we would be glad to have any other information we need to know or other skills that we need to learn to allow us to manage this equipment better and to maximize or to optimize their usage, that would be good enough.

Technical support has been okay regarding looking for solutions on the internet. When you have certain challenges and make a post in the forum seeking an immediate solution, it all depends on who gets those queries and is able to respond. In most cases, we have been able to get the solutions from the past experience of others who have had similar issues that have been put in the repository. 

On the whole, I think it's good enough even though we haven't been able to directly chat one-on-one or about issues.

It can only get difficult depending on what application or operating system you want to install. Then it all depends on how good or how skillful one is with the particular application. But the installation and configuration is never a problem. There has never been a problem with the hardware that I can say, apart from the issues I have already mentioned.

We have different people for different specific assignments. For each team, we have a good number of people. We are thinking of expanding because the university is a multi-campus university, and it has about four campuses, even though the whole thing is being centrally run. We are thinking of having these services run 24/7, and then we would need to have more hands so no one is overwhelmed with the work on ground. Currently, for those manning the server, we have about five people.

Implementation was completed by our own technical team from within the ICT directorate.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

Our primary use case of HPE ProLiant DL Servers is virtualization. We also host three servers on it: our active directory, file server, and web server. 

One of the most valuable features is iLO, which is very good. Another thing is the HPE support is very good. 

We have been using this solution for two and a half years. 

This solution is stable, and we use it daily. 

HPE ProLiant is scalable. 

In our organization, we have 100 users of this solution. We are using it for our entire data center. 

The technical support is very good. For the initial level, they provided me very good support for the installation of the servers and all the things after that. Somehow one hard disk crashed, so we logged a call at HPE and an engineer came the next day to replace the hard drive and explain how to prevent this type of issue. So, we have been a customer of HPE for more than 10 years. 

The initial setup is a little bit complicated, but after that, it's very easy to deploy the server. 

We had a third-party vendor help us with deployment. 

We have seen a ROI. We have improved because there is an entire platform moved on virtualization. Also, there is good support of HPE, so we have minimized our data center downtime 0.1%. 

This was a one-time purchase for us because it's hardware that we purchased from HPE. There aren't any licensing costs. 

I rate this product a nine out of ten. To those considering implementation, I would advise them to calculate their commercial as well as their data load and user load. After that, you can choose a solution from HPE. 

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.