Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (Formerly DCNM) Reviews

We use Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (formerly DCNM) to manage all the Nexus switches at the airport. We have around 40 of them. We use the solution to check the health and performances of the boxes, the environments (CPU/memory), the VPC and port channel links, the fabric module, power, the supervisor engine, line card modules, and the transceivers. It manages and monitors all the VDCs using SNMP and Syslog. Patch updates and upgrades of the NXOS are implemented using DCNM. We raise RMA directly from it anytime we have to replace a faulty module or switch. I think it is still the best data center management solution out there.

Easy patch updates and upgrades, data center live monitoring, log management, configuration management, raising TAC cases and many more are areas where DCNM has improved my company.

Cisco DCNM provides a unique capability of managing the admin VDCs of Nexus boxes. This is an extremely important feature that is not available with Cisco Super Prime or any other monitoring device. DCNM also supplies a clear graphical view of the connectivity across all VDCs. Integrating with DCMN is an incredible experience. The NDI integration provides an unparalleled level of insight into the data center, allowing for comprehensive analysis and visualization of the entire environment. The power of this integration has truly blown my mind!

The reporting is not very intuitive and has room for improvement. I opened a case with Cisco regarding the DCNM report, however, they were unable to help me. The report comes in the form of a programmable report, which requires high-level knowledge of Python and JSON script. As I was in a meeting and had to present the report, I had to settle for generating an Excel sheet to showcase the data. Unfortunately, this was not well-received as they expected a more detailed report.

In order to identify any issues in the data center, we must thoroughly examine a variety of components such as links, errors, SSPs, supervisor engines, power supply, and more. Forty of each element need to be examined.

I have been using the solution for almost 7 years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I was somewhat let down by my last two experiences with Cisco tech support for some issues. The previous team had been more knowledgeable and provided better service. The last case I opened was related to reporting and was particularly unimpressive. Cisco advised me to find someone who is proficient in programming to create a report for me. This is another expense for the company. I asked if there was a template I could use to develop my project, but Cisco said no. I had an issue with one of the boxes beforehand, where it would ask for sync when there was no configuration change after a few minutes. The box icon usually turns green when it's working, but it would turn red. The issue took almost two months to fix, and I had to do it myself. The lady never contacted me until two months later when she sent a message asking if we could continue this. I had already fixed the issue, so I was disappointed.

Neutral

No

Compared to previous versions of the solution the initial setup is easy. We initially used TenDot and had issues during the initial deployment. We then upgraded to 10.0.x, 10.4.x, 11.1(0), and finally 11.5(4), which was much simpler. Although we have not upgraded to 12.x yet, the deployment process of the latest versions didn't take as long as the initial deployment of 10.x DCNM. We experienced some issues with bugs and links showing down when they were online on 10.x DCNM. The problems have already been resolved in the latest releases 11.x and 12.x.

When we purchase Nexus boxes, the "DCNM for LAN Advanced License and MDS" licenses were purchased alongside with them; this allows the DCNM server to manage the Nexus boxes.

We can download Cisco DCNM from the Cisco website and install it on a virtual environment such as VMware or Hyper-V, a Windows system, or in the cloud. We don't need to pay for the DCNM license because the nexus switches required DCNM licenses to manage them. To activate the DCNM server license itself, we just needed to contact Cisco and they will generate the license for us.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We have two clients using the solution. One has a small data center and the other is running a large data center. Both clients are using Cisco DCNM Classic LAN - HA to manage the data centers.

We integrated the NAC server (Cisco ISE) with this unit, so all users and their respective privileges are managed remotely instead of locally. We have a large number of users with varying privileges, and they can all access the unit based on the privileges they have been granted on the NAC server.

The best Configuration Management an organization can use to manage Nexus boxes such as N2K, N3K, N5K, and N7K, is Cisco DCNM. The solution will also provide a full description of what is happening within the data center.

We have Cisco Prime and NNMi, but these services cannot fully monitor or manage all the NX-OS boxes. Therefore, Cisco DCNM is the best choice for managing the VDCs. Cisco DCNM has three interfaces, one to connect to the out-of-bound boxes (Enhanced Fabric Management), an Enhanced-Fabric-Inband interface for inbound traffic, and a third interface for DCNM-management traffic. Because most of the servers have only one interface (inbound), they are not able to manage the entire box and VDCs. With Cisco DCNM's multiple interfaces, it is able to manage both the inbound and outbound traffic on the box. This makes Cisco DCNM the perfect solution to manage data center infra.

We use the solution in data center to manage Nexus features and ECS servers.

Cisco provides very good documentation. It is easy to deploy and troubleshoot, and they have good backup support in case of any issues. With regard to maintenance or hardware, I haven't had any significant issues working with Cisco products.

It has a very nice dashboard so you can see what's currently happening in the network and the performance of the back story.

It's very costly. Most of our customers are actually looking for other cost-effective solutions. Even if it has very good performance, other competitors can offer the same at a lower cost. 

I have been using Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller (Formerly DCNM) as an implementor for five years.

It is 95% scalable. You need support for cosmetic bugs, security issues, and upgrades.

It is suitable for service provider customers.

We use Arista For SDN controllers.

We could set it up in less than a week.

Two guys are enough to install and configure the product. You need to have the basic package. You don't need any advanced services.

Most of our customers who use Cisco have had the box running for ten plus years, there is ROI.

Cisco has AI switches already for AI use cases.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to build private clouds in government data centers. Government institutions mainly use their own data centers. We come in when they want an update or something in addition to their data centers. We work on any addition or update requirements in these data centers. 

We are system integrators who also take part in purchase and selling. We architect solutions and implement them for all activities as part of a business. 

The most valuable feature is that it is vendor-independent. We have an open-solution approach. However, the actual devices have to be from an OEM but the management part, if proposed on open platforms, the solution becomes independent of OEMs. 

For network management, your access is locked to Cisco. Open solutions let us integrate with other solutions. Cisco should have better integration to use additional tools. If the customer thinks about using additional solutions, which are alternatives, Cisco should make sure they are not left out.

I have been using the solution for more than ten years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

The product is very scalable. We work with their architects to figure out the solution. Scalability is a factor we take into consideration when we design a data center. 

This solution can be used by big companies as well as SMBs. 

The technical support is good. I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten. For maintenance and support, Cisco provides options like next day, business day, or within around four hours. Multiple options are available, so depending on the use case, everyone can choose the ideal level of support. 

When a solution has more depth, the setup is more complex. Cisco has extensive training and documentation, so we don't have a hard time with the setup.

I would say that the pricing offers great value for the money. The solution is expensive, but it gets compensated by the use cases. 

The licensing cost is also on the higher side, but customers show confidence in our implementation of this solution. Getting trained people on this solution to do the job is easier for us. We have found that Cisco is a good company to work with. 

The licensing model is not complex. Some scenarios can be complex, but the complexity is justified. 

The cost structure is very transparent regarding maintenance and support. 

For some use cases, we worked with Juniper. Juniper is equally strong. 

In comparison, the certification process is very extensive for Cisco. Most professionals are trained and familiar with Cisco. Of every ten professionals, all will be trained in Cisco, whereas only two will be familiar with Juniper. 

Whichever solution needs to be implemented, we can always work with Cisco Solutions. They have the right fit for everything, Cisco helps us select the right product. We work out a solution and vet it by Cisco; that's how we work. I would overall rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The interface of this solution is easy to use overall and is intuitive enough. 

We recently deployed our supply value for architecture and connected it to DCNM.

I like running the scripts. With the help of a Python script, we deployed within the configuration and built up the code.

One of the biggest challenges is that we aren't always able to push the configuration onto the target device. Whenever this happens, we have to do a factory reset, put on the script, and then reconfigure it again. In the next release, I would like to have a troubleshooting feature.

I have been using Cisco Data Center Network Manager for about two years.

Cisco Data Center Network Manager is not a stable product. We had some database issues, and we had to restart it manually. We also had some false alarms and had to investigate. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a seven.

Cisco Data Center Network Manager is scalable. We have two IT engineers using it right now.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability an eight.

I think we are premium partners, so technical support was mostly good.

Positive

We have Cisco ECI. We are focusing on high-end customers, so we are using DCNM. We also have Cisco AFI.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We implemented this solution. We have three people, including a network architect, to deploy and manage this solution.

I would tell potential users a couple of things. Firstly, if you're trying to execute any network script, ensure it's properly written. Otherwise, it's going to create a huge impact. Secondly, before performing any upgrade to the latest version, pay the tag ticket to ensure that the firmware is OK and cannot cause any outage in your environment.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Data Center Network Manager an eight.

Our primary use case is for monitoring and protecting companies from malware attacks as well as providing secure VPN. I'm an IT solution consultant. 

The monitoring system in this product is valuable. It provides a clear indication of what's going on in the network and the server processing, power, etc. User interface is also very good, very informative. 

It's a relatively expensive product for some clients so perhaps improvement could be made in that area. In terms of product improvement, I don't have any recommendations. I'm happy with the product as is. 

I've been providing service on this solution and using it for over 10 years. 

It's a stable product, I don't intend to replace it in the near future.

I've used the technical support many times in the past. They are very helpful. 

I've used HP in the past, but it's for enterprise companies so not comparable to Network Manager.

The initial setup is very straightforward - I use the help of an integrator for this. 

I believe cost for the product is below 5,000K.

I would recommend Network Manager for small and medium scale companies. When it comes to larger scale companies, you would need to look at HP. 

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for system network monitoring. We also use it for the implementation of Cisco projects and for gateway documents. We recently did a big implementation, and we did most of the features and configuration through Cisco Data Center Network Manager. So we are basically using this product to implement another one.

I like that is easy to work on and straightforward.

The configuration is too complicated and you have to create templates and use a lot of menus. They need to make it simpler.

We've tried the maximum scalability and it is really scalable. We've had no problems.

Whenever we have any cases we are dire to commit to, we use Cisco's technical support. They are very good. 

We normally use Cisco products, like Cisco Management. I have a variance with SolarWinds and EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol). But we try to choose the same product from the same window from Cisco, and now we are trying to provide the same network for the management.

The initial setup was really straightforward.

This solution is the easiest and most straightforward. We would recommend it for sure. I would like to see more product devices and have the full software to the Data Center Management product to purchase. This is because the Data Center Network Manager doesn't support every product of Cisco. On a scale from one to 10, I would rate Cisco Data Center Network Manager an eight because there is room for improvement.

Data Center Network Manager is a little complex because it includes a lot of hardware to be installed, so making this simpler would be an improvement.

I've been using this solution for five years.

Data Center Network Manager is absolutely stable.

Data Center Network Manager is scalable.

Cisco's technical support is excellent.

The initial setup is straightforward so long as you have experience in networking.

We've had a good ROI from Data Center Network Manager. There's also a facility on Cisco's website to calculate the ROI from adopting this solution.

On average, Data Center Network Manager's pricing isn't too costly unless you choose a premier license.

I would advise those thinking of implementing Data Center Network Manager to get some expert supervision during the planning stage. I would give Data Center Network Manager a rating of nine out of ten.

The HDA is part of the micro-segmentation of the network, and it can be integrated with security departments like the F5 Checkpoint Firewall Tool. You can integrate all the networks into the software and file network data center. We are looking for the load balancing and application service of Cloudflare.

The visibility of applications is not great, which is why we study upscalability. We want to understand the software-defined network and access, the edge, and how to connect. The setup is complex and could be improved. Regarding additional features, the integration with the APM would be good.

We have been using this solution for 14 years, and it is implemented on-premises, Google Cloud, Amazon, or Azure.

It is a stable solution. 

It's scalable in terms of the network and software. You can do many things in terms of integration with the terraform.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten. We have a great relationship with them and talk directly with the business unit.

Positive

The setup process was complex and not simple. It's not a plug-and-play solution.

I rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being a good price.

I rate this solution a six out of ten. It can be compared to VMWare but more as a complimentary solution than a competitor.