Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers Reviews

I am super happy with the product. The product is very user-friendly. It performs well.

Upgrading firmware is easier in Dell than in Lenovo.

I have been using the solution for eight months.

The tool is stable. Predictive Failure Analysis detects issues beforehand. It’s very interesting.

We might increase the usage of the product in the future. Around 100 people access the infrastructure. Our system administrators manage multiple solutions.

We contact our system integrators if we have any issues.

We were using blade servers along with Lenovo. The blade servers were old, so we chose to work only on Lenovo Rack Servers.

Lenovo is more reliable than Dell.

People from Dell came to us and told us about some features that are a little bit easier in Dell. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We are using Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers for our VM processes.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers availability could improve. We have been waiting two months for one server.

I have been using Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers for approximately seven years.

We have not experienced any issues with the Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers' performance. It is stable.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers are scalable.

We have approximately 500 users directly connected to the data center. We have plans to increase usage of the solution next year.

From my understanding, Lenovo does not provide any direct support. They are providing support through vendors only. I have not used the support.

I have used another solution prior to using Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers. However, it was seven years ago.

The vendors did the implementation of the Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers.

The maintenance of the solution is mainly done by the vendors, and we have one person that is handling all the data center operations. However, they not only support Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers, but they also support the other solutions on site too, such as Cisco.

Other than the standard licensing fees there are no other additional costs. The price of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers could be better.

I would recommend this solution to others, we have not had any issues.

I rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers an eight out of ten.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers can be deployed on-premise and in the cloud.

The use case varies from client to client.

The most valuable aspect of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers is the brand name and the service relationship we have with Lenovo.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers could improve the availability of their solution. The supply chain is severely broken, we've had to wait many months for component parts to a system time after time. The availability of discs and raid controllers has been difficult lately.

I have been using Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers for approximately 10 years.

Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers' stability is excellent.

We sell Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers to small and medium-sized businesses, whatever configurations we need to put together for the client's needs we are able to deliver.

I have not directly dealt with the support from Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers.

The initial setup of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers is straightforward.

I rate the initial setup of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers a four out of five.

Our technicians handle the implementation of the Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers. we typically use one technician for the implementation and we have a team of technicians that are available to provide support.

The cost of the solution depends entirely on the client. There are not any additional costs other than the standard licensing fee.

I rate the price of Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers a four out of five.

I have previously evaluated HP solutions. HP is a comparable solution to Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers.

Lead times to purchase this solution can be much longer than then expected at this time due to logistics delays.

I rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

We're using this product for a document management system. We are using the latest version of this solution.

It's deployed on-prem. Almost all our employees are using servers DMS. It's about 80 people.

It's very power-efficient and allows you to access the rack server directly without accessing the operating system on that server. They use XClarity Controller to access the server and monitor the status of the server.

I have been using this product since 2018.

It's stable. I have a few notification alerts about PCI cards but it's rare.

It's very scalable. If we need to, we can easily scale up this type of server.

Technical support is good. We call them, discuss the problem, and in that short period of time, we find the solution.

It's very easy to set up and energy-efficient. It's very compact and has enough connections on the front and back of the rack. I'm very satisfied with this product.

We have one rack with five rack servers and some data storage, so physical deployment takes one day.

Other solutions are a little bit more expensive than Lenovo. Lenovo has a good price for that purpose. I don't know the exact amount of money, but when I compared it to Dell or HPE, Lenovo was the best when it comes to price and equipment.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. There's always the possibility of making something better.

They have taken over from IBM, which was the market leader. They have taken a lot of technology from IBM, and IBM always delivered very powerful hardware to the IT industry compared to Dell EMC or anyone else. They basically have a bit of an upper hand on the technology compared to any others in the market.

The solution is stable.

Setting up the product initially is simple. 

The power consumption needs to be optimized in Lenovo. We also used Dell and find that is the case there as well. Though it has been optimized, we find it is still lacking for our conventions.

The solution could lower its costs a bit to make it more competitive with, for example, Dell. 

Lenovo needs to modernize its components. 

They should be using proprietary products rather than getting third-party products for remote sensing or security deployed on their rack servers.

I've been using the solution for five or six years at this point. It's been a while. We've used it as long as we've used Dell. 

We've used the solution for a few years not, and haven't had any issues with the stability. Overall, it is good. 

If STI technology is employed, you can scale the solution. Otherwise, it doesn't really scale. 

I'm also using Dell EMC PowerEdge rack servers. We use both in our organization. 

The power of the hardware is very good on Dell, compared to Lenovo. The features of the hardware, the security features, in particular, are very good in Dell.

The initial setup is easy. We didn't have any issues with the process. 

We had no need for outside engineers. We could handle the setup ourselves. 

The solution is a bit costly. We find Dell much more reasonably priced. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I definitely suggest potential users skip Lenovo and go for Dell EMC, which has good hardware, and great internal security components. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. 

I like everything about this solution. It is a very good server, with excellent availability. The size of the power is adequate and the low heating is beneficial. 

I would like the solution to be improved by having more advanced utilities. 

I have used the solution for approximately six years. 

The solution is scalable. 

We have had the chance to contact technical support and it was good. 

The initial setup of the solution was straightforward, it was very easy.

The price of the solution is very expensive when compared to other solution like HP or Dell.

I have evaluated similar products to this solution from HP and Dell. 

I rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers an eight out of ten. 

We are using this solution without any errors on the main boards or other systems. We are also using the storage of Lenovo, that is, V7000. We have 30 VM machines on the servers here, and we are using SP1 scalable processors.

We are buying all the things to use from Lenovo. Everything comes from Lenovo, that is, hard drives, racks, memory, and processors.

The IMM tool is great because we can upgrade different views and device versions very quickly. We can upgrade everything from a single point through a single dashboard, which is great for us because we also have Lenovo storage. Lenovo ThinkSystem also has Xclarity built into the system.

HP has a riser inside, but Lenovo does not have a riser. It would be good to have a riser with Lenovo. The GUI of the system is really bad. HP has a very good UI for smart memories and everything inside, but in Lenovo, we have a black-and-white UI.

HP right now manufactures a server with scalable SP1 and SP2 on a single machine, which is not the case with Lenovo. They are changing the machine. For SP 1, there is one server, and for SP2, there is another server, which is really bad. In HP, we can use two models of processors in a single case. Lenovo should also be improved to have SP1 and SP2 scalable processors simultaneously on a single machine. They should not release another machine. This issue is also there in H3650 severs. They are all inside, but only V3 CPU or only v4 CPU can work, whereas, in HBG9, we can deploy V3 and V4 simultaneously.

Lenovo also needs to advertise more because I can't see advertisements anywhere. 

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

It is stable.

It is scalable. We are deploying the servers for our customers. One of our customers has about 100 people working in the factory.

I got support for a license issue, where I made a mistake in typing the serial number because of which it wasn't matching. Their support was really great. They edited my serial number, and I could get the IMM license very quickly.

It is not complex. It is easy for us. The deployment took less than a week because we know what we should do. In four or five days, we had deployed it into the server. HP is easier to deploy than Lenovo. 

The licensing cost is the same as HP. It doesn't have any additional cost. However, the price, for example, for the memory option, does not match other vendors such as HP or Dell. They should work on the pricing of Lenovo. It is a great competitor, and it should compete with the price. 

I would rate Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for virtualization purposes. We are running a huge amount of different VM's on them.

The usage of the server itself, the hardware specs of the specific models is more than enough for the project or projects' needs. The controllers which were used, or the hardware (HDDs or solid drives from Lenovo, which are used in this hardware) are more than enough for our project needs. Overall, the general configuration of the server, the system, truly covers the project needs.

Most of our projects come with a pretty heavy workload. The server itself covers all of the bases — my clients are really happy with it.

For example, one of the projects is from a medical laboratory company that provides services for medical institutions. There are a lot of workload calculations and Rack Servers covers the mix.

HP and Dell servers have multi-house technology that is really easy to use. We don't experience any problems with logging or gathering hardware information. The rest of the technical and software stuff is absolutely the same no matter the manufacturer. So, from a technical perspective, it is the same.

The general purpose of this hardware is the same, the functionality is the same, it just goes by a different name. As I mentioned, the stability of the server itself is a benefit for me; it's more reliable now.

From my perspective, from my case usage, I wouldn't say that I have seen a lot of space for a general upgrade of the system. The technology is constantly developing. It's just a matter of the client or customer getting the most high-end service for a long period of time — for example, one or two years. In three years, this technology will be old and there will be new technology available. Presently, I wouldn't say that there is space for much improvement on the current servers.

Technology is developing continuously. We are getting new high-end drives and so on. Technology development does not simply stop in its tracks, waiting until you adopt that server right now — in three to five years, it will be obsolete. You will be still able to buy some hardware in order to upgrade it because the platform itself is universal, but it's up to you whether you buy something old or something new and upgrade it.

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

I would say the stability of the system itself would be the biggest advantage. I have worked with other manufacturers — Firmware for example — and they are not so stable.

Your budget determines the scalability. It's absolutely scalable and you can upgrade the platform with the hardware you are planning to use.

I have used their support from time to time, in some cases when I was unable to find immediate information. I don't remember if I contacted them directly or just used their website to gather information. There are a lot of cases where you can just find everything you need on their website.

I would give their technical support a rating of nine.

From an administrative perspective, the initial setup is absolutely straightforward. From a user's perspective, it not so straightforward if you want to add some features. The old servers don't have the stability needed to manage the storage from the remote management tool; it's not really comfortable, but still usable. It's absolutely fine when setting up the server.

The basic setup takes less than one hour. It depends on where the servers are deployed from and how ready the server is. I mostly work remotely, so I am not hands-on with the server. Deployment is just a matter of the network and how it was prepared previously. At minimum, deployment takes one hour.

Whether we use a deployment plan depends on the customer and their needs.

The person who will be deploying the server should get the basic information on the needs of the project first, and compare it to the hardware specifications that this specific hardware or any specific hardware will provide. If there is a level for any upgrade, it's absolutely fine. The person should be looking for a solution that will cover the needs of the project with more than a difference of 100% for the future. The projects will increase the size of it, so the server should cover the current needs of the projects, plus 100%.

Our customers absolutely see a return on their investment with Lenovo Rack Servers.

The price in comparison, for example, to deploying a cloud solution on a cloud platform, is fully coverable in terms of deploying the same solution on personal hardware. So yes, it's coverable.

I don't really remember the prices for the servers but in comparison with the bigger players on the market, their prices are fine with me. They are not ideal because clients will always want a lower price. Regarding the licensing, I don't have any information on that because I wasn't facing any cases where we needed additional licensing on the servers.

The general usage of the hardware itself is a level of education that you get during the process of the initial setup and further maintenance of the servers. That alone is very valuable. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. I cannot give it a higher rating because the perfect solution does not exist.