Cisco Nexus Reviews

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is to provide data center access for our customers. This includes providing servers, storage, and interconnecting those to the rest of the network.

This product has improved the way our organization functions by providing fast access to storage and data center resources. We are getting better performance out of our network by using this platform.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the capacity of the switches. One of the main advantages of going with the Nexus 9000 is that it can do advanced routing and segmentation with VLANs. 

In the next release of the solution, I would like to see varying integration between VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instances so we can integrate BGB into different VRFs in a more organized way. We have some issues with tunnels and VRFs. 

The stability of this solution is pretty cool. NX-OS is a solid match. It does run the features and all the protocols very well for us.

The scalability of this solution is very good. We had different options for physical form factors. It does work for what we need on our enterprise network.

We have a 1GB connection to a data center. Then we upgraded a server. We can quickly get more scalability from the switch by migrating to 10GB or even 25GB connections.

Cisco technical support is a good backup team when you have issues with anything. If you open a case they are very good at following up and making sure that the issue's resolved according to the needs of our network.

We knew we needed to invest in a new solution because upgrading the network is a must for every company. We had to just take into consideration the legacy switches that we were using were not giving the performance needed for the network. The old hardware did not support the demands of our clients connecting to the network.

The initial setup, if you know what you are doing, is very straightforward. You have to know what a switch is and what routing protocols are, like any other device.

If you are familiar with the IOS it is a little bit easier to translate to NX-OS and use the switch.

We're the reseller for Cisco Nexus.

We have seen new ROI from the previous platform to the new one. We're starting to see that.

Our licensing costs for this solution are approximately $100K a year for the switching part.

The products on our shortlist were mostly Cisco Nexus and Meraki.

On a scale from 1 - 10, I would give Cisco Nexus a 9. It's a solid platform. We've been having very good stability from the use of that network device.

Take into consideration the features and the protocols that are in use. Make sure that whatever is being used as a current platform can be migrated to the Nexus and that the features are available before you purchase the hardware. Understand exactly how the infrastructure will work from the operating system of the switch in case you're using any advanced features from another platform. Make sure that the transition is as expected and don't go down a bad path.

We use this solution for our data center layer two, layer three, infrastructure.

Our main data center has been using this solution for the past twelve months and we have had zero outages. Before that, when we were using the Catalyst 6500 series, that was not the case. The stability of this solution is a major win. 

The most valuable feature is stability because in a data center you really need that.

The consolidation of all of the layer two ports into one rack is very valuable.

I would like to see more on-device programmability, as it seems to be lacking in this platform.

The EEM has limited capabilities compared to the Catalyst 9300 series, so this can be improved.

I would like to see better support for the newer front end tools, such as the DNS center.

Stability and availability is a definite plus on the Nexus platform. It seems to have better HA capabilities compared to the older platforms.

The scalability of this solution is better than that of the traditional models. You can always add more 2k switches to a 5k underlying chassis and increase the number of ports without any other configuration. There is no additional configuration required for FEX ports.

Technical support for this solution has always been the same.

The old solution was at end-of-life.

We were using the traditional Catalyst 6500 switches with the traditional iOS. It didn't provide us with 10-gigabit ports in the data center, which is why we switched to Nexus.

The initial setup was a little bit more complex because it was a new technology that we were adopting. The learning curve was a little steeper. However, the actual deployment was pretty straightforward.

We used a reseller, World Wide Technology, to help with our deployment. Our experience with them was very good.

We have seen ROI in terms of support and business continuity.

We are a Cisco shop, so we didn't look for an alternative platform. We knew that we were going to use Cisco.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution is to train their support staff on the Nexus product before deployment, and not after the fact. Once you deploy, if the support staff has to learn while on the job then it may cause issues. It is good to invest in training prior to the implementation, especially on this platform because it is very different than the traditional iOS.

The software upgrades are also different from that of the traditional Catalyst switches, so if you are not used to doing them on this platform then you have to be careful.

The other thing that I can say is that the scalability and stability of this solution have improved when compared to previous products.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the Cisco Nexus is agility.

I have used Cisco Nexus within the past 12 months.

Cisco Nexus is a stable solution.

The best-suited environment for the Cisco Nexus is not a small office, it is used mainly for enterprise networks. It provides more throughput and has good capabilities. My customers in the data center are happy with the solution.

We have a number of clients using this solution.

The support from Cisco Nexus is very good. They provide a full level of support.

If you know the basics of the requirements of the customer the implementation can be done with no issues. If you are preplanned for the implementation the process will not take long, but if you do not have a plan then it could take some more time.

If you have a large setup with a lot of configuration with many active ports then it could take a few hours to complete the implementation.

We do the implementation ourselves.

If you compare Cisco hardware to any other vendors, such as HPE, they are more expensive. There is a license to use the solution. If my customer's licenses are about to expire I receive notification from Cisco, this is very helpful.

I have evaluated other similar solutions, such as HPE.

I rate Cisco Nexus a nine out of ten.

We use the 9000s in a series of different things in both the data center and even in the LAN (Local Area Network). Mainly we just use the products for the management of all the traffic — nothing really crazy. Being in the government, we can't use ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) and certain other technologies yet. The 9000s are deployed for high-end layer two and layer three switching capabilities.

The solution has improved operations by helping us resolve bottlenecks throughout our infrastructure. A lot of it came down to the fact that these new products have a much higher throughput. So it kind of cleans traffic up and makes things a lot smoother in process.

The most valuable benefit of this solution is the ability to use all the different features like VX LAN (Virtual Extensible LAN) and PPC. We use the solutions in the data center and on the LAN side. For all intents and purposes, we were kind of hoping that the 9000s would take on the form of multiple contacts and VDCs (Virtual Device Contexts) like the 7000s have, but we haven't seen that capability come out yet.

The only real feature that we are hoping would evolve at some point is multi-contexts to get into multi-tenancy type environments. We are very interested in that with the 7000s. But we didn't like all the other robustness that 7000s had that we had to pay extra for. 9000s fit our needs a little bit better, but multi-contexts would be a really good feature for organizations like us, so we can separate different tenants logically and in a more secure fashion.

So far the stability is great. We never had any kind of problems with it. I really can't even speak to any questions about the stability because of the fact that we had zero problems. We've only been using it for about a year-and-a-half though. We are hoping to keep continue on that path and that everything continues to perform at a high level.

The scalability of the product is great. We buy way above what we really need. So when it comes to density, throughput, feature sets, software, etcetera, we find out what we need and we can just upgrade it. That approach has made things really good. We look forward to tapping into the ability to start automating things through Python and Linux customizations.

We were getting bottlenecks at throughput because our equipment was just getting too old and too slow. The whole architecture was archaic. We saw our chance to make a major change and not just replace a hubcap with a hubcap. We decided to go with a much better solution.

The setup wasn't really complex beyond the fact that we switched to a different platform that has a totally different operating system. It was a bit of a learning curve for us. We weren't heavily into Nexus, so current staff didn't have skills using that iOS screen immediately. But now it's a lesson learned, always very easy to get around after a little while.

We went through a reseller for implementation. Worldwide Technologies was the one we chose for the major part of this. We've also used Force 3 for some other smaller purchases and the integration of this kind of product, too. But our biggest purchase that changed our environment was through Worldwide Technologies.

Our experience with them was outstanding. They were willing to meet with us, engage with us and discuss where we wanted to go with the capability ad nauseam with no restraints. They would come to us and have workshops and everything without any kind of problems.

We went straight to Cisco and actually did not consider other solutions. It was partly because of familiarity. All of their staff were trained in what we needed. We can change product lines within Cisco if we needed to upgrade without any pain points. We didn't bother to consider other vendors.

I would rate the Cisco solutions as a nine out of ten because nothing is a ten. Everything can improve. It's a top-notch product and it has not done anything short of everything we wanted it to do. 

As far as advice, I would definitely say to try to look five years ahead, instead of just one or two. In our case, unique things about the nine K's are that they can run in iOS or ACI mode and that works with our planning. It was very favorable that we could maintain our current style of infrastructure that is not as automated. But then, through a transition plan, we won't need to buy new hardware to switch over to a more automated approach like with ACI. For us, that was a very favorable capability of this product that conformed to our future modeling. 

We have a lot of customers that we implement Nexus platforms for.

This product is made for lossless data, so it's a very high-performance switch. If there's one place you don't want to lose data, it's in the data center. The 9Ks support speeds of 40-gigabit and 100-gigabit, today. They've got pretty good throughput in the box, they've got virtual output queues, things of that nature, which help contribute to the lossless data.

I like a lot about this solution. They are very high-performance switches and they are made for lossless data, so they're a good play in the customer environment. 

The 9K was developed to support ACI, the software-defined data center technology. For this reason, there is no feature parity between the 9K and the 5K or 7K, which means that it is harder to position the 9K to future proof them. If a customer wants to leverage their investment for ACI in the future then it is difficult. I know that Cisco has added some Fibre Channel over Ethernet capabilities to the 9K line, but there are some other features that it does not have capabilities for. For example, virtual device context is not supported. It would be really nice to see some capabilities like that added to the 9K line so that we can position them to future-proof our customers.

I understand why it is that they don't have some of the features from the older Nexus models, but we get into some scenarios where the customers need those features, and they have to go with a 7K or a 5K. Ideally, I would prefer to position a 9K if I could, to future-proof them and lead them along that path to ACI, eventually.

With respect to the stability, I can't think of any major issues I've ever come across with it.

I think that these units are made to scale, but it depends on how they're deployed. If they're deployed within an ACI environment and that's the customer's expectation, they work fine.

If they're deployed, say, a 9500 model in a non-ACI role, a traditional data center switching role, and the customer decides that they want a virtual device context then we could not support it in that scenario. In this particular case, it wouldn't really scale. That is why it's tough sometimes, in a non-ACI environment, to implement the 9K.

In general, Cisco has always got good technical support.

They're responsive, their people are always available, and they respond relatively quickly. Compared to competitors such as HP, Aruba, Dell EMC Networking, etc, the support from Cisco is always a head and shoulders above those other competitors.

There is some complexity to the initial setup of this solution.

There are a lot of facets to configure a network. It's one thing to configure VLANs and things like that, but when you're configuring quality of service, for example, on a Nexus device, it's all class maps, service policies, mapping queues, and things like that. There is no auto QOS functionality like you might have on a Catalyst switch line, so they're a little bit more complex.

It is not really a big deal because once people have worked with them a little bit, they master it and move on.

They don't see additional revenue from it, but they do see cost savings. With the 9K in NX-OS mode, there's still a lot of touch points with them, although the support for bash and pipe can really simplify that. In an ACI mode, certainly, there are savings because of the orchestration and automation that's occurring as part of the software-defined network.

Cisco's licensing structures can be complex across different technologies, for example, unified communications. The ACI licensing is not so bad.

As they are moving to the DNA Essentials, as opposed to the old Cisco One Advantage-type solution, it is adding a little more complexity to the licensing scenarios. But in general, I think that Cisco is moving toward synching everything up and trying to get everything licensed in a similar way, whether its a data center switch or a campus network switch.

I'm fine with where Cisco is moving to.

There are a lot of competitors out there. For example, the VMware NSX, which is a pure overlay, it's more network virtualization. The ACI solution is more full-featured, and you get visibility under the underlying overlay. It's very performing, and where we've deployed it for customers they are extremely happy with it. There's a learning curve in deploying it because you do things a little differently, but overall it's a solid solution.

When we lead with a software-defined data center, we lead with Cisco.

I'm a pre-sales engineer, and I help customers blueprint out and design their future data center. We really like this solution. It's a great switch. If there is a data center switch we try to lead with, it's the 9K. I like the Cisco ACI solution in general, that the Nexus 9K is a foundation of. I would certainly recommend it.

If a competitor like VM or NSX tries to position their solution and they try to say, "You don't really have to replace the network or re-design the network", that's not really true because the overlay is only going to be as performant as the underlay. If they deploy that technology on an old-age network that's not deployed in a spine and left topology, then the customer is going to have to do that anyway. The Cisco solution takes all of that into consideration as part of the deployment, so it is an optimized software-defined network when it's deployed for the customer.

Overall, they are a pretty good switch, although it doesn't have some of the features that some of the previous lines have had.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Currently, our infrastructure relies on hyper-converged technology, in conjunction with Cisco infrastructure, which is essential for our features. Spamify utilizes Cisco infrastructure for its functionality, while Linksys manages connections with other systems. Our servers handle computation, storage, and related technologies, while Cisco takes care of network functions, including routing and switching. We also employ Cisco's firewall for security purposes, both externally and internally. Now, we're in search of structural virtualization technology with security and virtualization capabilities for version 4.16.

The scalability can be improved. 

It is a stable solution. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

We require technical support, and they've provided assistance several times across different countries. We've found their tech support to be excellent, especially in their willingness to resolve issues promptly.

Positive

It takes two fully functional days to deploy the solution. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

I do not know which version we are using. 

The solution has good stability, so the technical team, the people handling the data center, are very comfortable with it and can push some policies as per the applications. So, I feel the solution to be okay. It really supports the management perspective. While it may not add value for the users, it enables the administrators to work freely. I am referring to the port network switches. 

The solution could be more user-friendly. 

It should have a more lenient cost. It could be cheaper in general. 

The installation process lasted too long, taking 16 to 24 hours for full completion. It should be faster. 

We have been using Cisco Nexus for two years.

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

I feel the solution to be sufficiently scalable. 

Tech support is good. There is no need for it to be improved. 

Installation is unduly long, with the entire process lasting 16 to 24 hours. 

We have around ten people managing these devices, consisting of managers, administrators and engineers. 

The solution should be more cost-effective in general. There is an annual licensing fee. 

The same 9,000 people connect daily to these applications in our data center.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. 

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten. 

I am an engineer and work primarily with our data center network and data center security. The Nexus switch is a data center switch and I have a lot of recent experience with it. My company is a solution provider and this is one of the products that we sell to our clients.

The 9000 series works really well in the spine-and-leaf architecture and gives you capabilities up to 400 gig.

The most valuable feature is performance. Not many customers are using the 400 gig speed yet, but you do have flexibility as if you're going to run the ports at 10 gig, 40 gig, or 100 gig. That port flexibility is really important.

There is an ongoing problem with the limitation of the TCAM table, which is that it doesn't have enough memory to allow you to be really granular with your policy. Without enough memory, it requires manual manipulation if you exceed or get near to the TCAM limits. They have improved it, but in the early days, it took down some companies.

I have been using Cisco products for many years and have experience with the Nexus line since it was first released.

These switches are very stable.

The spine-and-leaf architecture is very scalable. If you need more ports to plug servers in, you add more leaves. If you need more throughput then you add more spines.

All of the switches at the top are the spine, and those plug into those are the leaves, and then the servers plug into the leaves. It's highly scalable, because if you have more servers then just purchase two more switches. If you need more throughput and better performance, then you just purchase two switches for the spine. You can continue to scale out the model very simply.

The Nexus 9000 platform is by far the best-selling and most popular, and there are a couple of reasons for that. It's less expensive than a 7K or 5K solution and in fact, we hardly sell the 5Ks anymore. The 9000 really works well in the spine-and-leaf, which is the current architecture.

The initial setup is really straightforward and if you use ACI, running on top of the Nexus 9K, you don't really have to do anything but plug the switches in. The software manages all of the policy.

Without ACI, setup requires the use of the command line, which is the same as it's always been.

The maintenance can be handled by one person or a small team.

The Nexus 9000 is very competitively priced. 

The Nexus Dashboard is a relatively new product that is in the portfolio for the data center. It hosts the multi-site orchestrator and has functionality for self-healing and self-optimizing of the data center network. It's Nexus' best work.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that if you're looking to cut costs in the data center, there's not that big of a difference between a Cisco switch and other switches. But, when it comes to things like storage, between the most expensive and the least expensive, there's a lot of different pricing in there. So, I wouldn't cut costs on your switches. I would suggest looking at other areas where you can cut costs.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.