Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

Our primary use case is for the distributed computing system in several data centers. 

It has reduced the time it takes to put the servers in production by half the time.  

The flexibility and scalability are the most valuable features. 

They should have more blade options and more configuration flexibility. Also, the price is expensive. It should be cheaper but it is worth the price. 

It's very stable. 

The scalability is one of its main features.

Technical support is very good. 

We switched because we wanted more flexibility, more features and because the global PoC price is better. 

The initial setup was complex because our engineers had some problems with putting it into production but it was fine after they solved the issue.   

I would rate it an eight out of ten. The features that it has are balanced with customer's needs and the price. In order to make it a ten, they should lower the cost.

I would advise someone considering this solution to explore all of the feature options. The solution's value is in its features. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for data center virtualization.

There's high commodity stuff but nothing is very useful inside. The automation is a valuable feature, it's interesting. 

Mostly documentation needs to be improved, we need strong documentation. We also want to not need to open a tech case every time we need to troubleshoot. Stability and storage need to be improved. 

Stability is really poor, especially the storage stability. We lost data. There were disruptions of clusters and that's one big pain point of the solution. It's not stable enough, the documentation is not good, there's not much documentation available. We need a tech engineer for every call. 

Scalability was cool on the marketing site but the two node clusters crashed. I'm not willing to build large scale infrastructure with this product because it's not stable enough.

Technical support is good but we need it for every piece we do. For every change, we need technical support. They are quick to respond and help us solve the issue. 

We switched solutions because the market drives us, mostly Cisco drives us. They have high goals. Normally, we build up a classic converged infrastructure but now Cisco wanted us to deploy hyperconverged.

The initial setup is very complex. 

We are partners so we integrate it ourselves. 

We did not look at other solutions. We only focus on Cisco. We love Cisco and hopefully,  HyperFlex will become a better product. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. I would advise someone considering this solution to be careful. 

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is simple to use, user-friendly and has been best for our purposes.

The solution could improve by having more customization.

I have used Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series within the past 12 months.

I have found Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series to be reliable and stable.

The scalability of the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is good.

The support of the solution is good, we have not had a problem.

The implementation and configuration of the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series were easy.

The full deployment took approximately three months.

We did the implementation with the help of a partner.

The price of the solution could be reduced, it is a little expensive.

My advice to others is you must have the project very well defined, or you will get in trouble.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case is to reduce our hardware storage and to make it virtual so we use vSAN and HyperFlex.

The most valuable features are scalability and the easy operation - if it works. You can configure everything from just one window.

They can't get a POC to work because there are big latencies between the two sites we have. Even though we have a private fiber connection and everything else works well, they can't get the two products to talk to each other. They are not able to build it up. It looks like it's a firmware issue. They said it isn't but now it's looking like it is. I hope we can sort it out. 

In terms of the stability, we can't get it to work. We have one or two VMs online but nothing we could say to get an overview of it.

In terms of scalability, we can add servers, storage servers or computing servers, and we're much more flexible with block-based storage.

We had one other block-based storage just run out of support and service so we thought we'd go with migration. We have a dual-vendor concept and so we wanted to go with vSAN and something else in storage so we chose HyperFlex.

The setup is pretty much is straightforward. The issue is that it doesn't work afterwards.

We integrated directly through Cisco. 

I would rate this solution a three out of ten. I would advise someone considering this solution not to spread it over two data centers.

The primary use case is VDI and virtualization. We are testing it for VDI. For VDI, HyperFlex has been pretty useful.

Everything is in the solution. We don't have to connect to something else or pieces from somewhere else. We also receive centralized reports from it.

The compute storage and virtualization come all in one box.

We would like HyperFlex to connect the storage directly into Fabric Interconnect along with the features of the solution. We have enough ports in HyperFlex. We don't want to buy another set of switches to connect to Fabric Interconnect, complicating the solution. This change would be a great improvement.

We are happy with the stability.

The scalability is fantastic. It scales much more than we need.

We have not used the technical support yet.

Cisco let us know about HyperFlex. We receive training and liked it. We said, "Why not? Let's test it."

The setup is not easy, but it's not complicated. How you implement things can be complex.

We had some courses on it and followed them. So, we did the deployment on ourselves.

We have seen ROI.

We also evaluated VxRail from Dell EMC. However, we went with HyperFlex because it is a Cisco product.

Give HyperFlex a try. Try a demo.

The solution is fantastic for VDI usage.

I have many clients using this solution for a number of reasons, such as unified communications and collaboration.

There could be an increase in performance to improve the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The solution is reliable.

We have had no problems with the scalability of the solution.

The technical support has been very good for this solution.

I would rate the installation of Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series an eight out of ten. However, it can be complex. 

We are on an annual subscription and the price is fair.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-SeriesRev an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for desktop infrastructure.

The most important benefits that we've seen from this solution is that it reduces the cost of management and it has easy monitoring systems.

The most valuable features are that you can easily scale up and compute.

A stretch function is really needed. Germans think that because of the high availability and the security that two data centers are better but we want edge all in one cluster. This is a needed feature, the cluster feature, and we'd also like to see a possibility for ROBO offices.

We had some trouble during the implementation, but it was one of the first versions and everything is fine now. Stability was only an issue at the beginning.

Scalability is really great because you can adjust the HyperFlex node. If you need more storage, you can add some more drives when it's not full at the beginning. Also, you have the possibility to edge the compute resources with the plates. 

The first version was complex to set up because there were some open questions within the workflows. Now, the new installer is great. It's really great, really fast, and it's easy to set up.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use it mostly for our business customers.

Cisco should combine its features with its prices.

The product is stable. No one complains about the stability, which is fabulous.

The scalability is okay. Our customers don't complain about it.

Our technical team said that this is the best solution for us.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was implemented three months ago.

Three months is too soon to see ROI.

The price is a bit too high.

Our technical team made this decision.

Be more careful if your technical person says, "It is necessary to implement and develop the infrastructure."