Cisco Nexus Reviews

Cisco Nexus introduced VDC, Virtual Device Context, meaning the person has a single physical box, usually one pair, for dynamic purposes. This pair allows one to create multiple logical switches, for totally different functioning. One could be for production, another for UAT, a third for Dev. Yet, we are talking about a physically single box. It has also introduced VPC, Virtual Port Channel, which allows for more redundancy and flexibility.

Cisco Nexus if focused primarily on the data center. While it has been in the market for nearly ten years, there are still many areas in need of improvement. There may be many bugs which remain unresolved. It is important for Cisco to be aware of the various issues it encounters and come up with new releases. 

The frequency with which this occurs can vary. It may take months, be done quarterly or, sometimes, after half a year has elapsed. There is still much to be done to increase their stability, something which can depend. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We have been dealing with Cisco Nexus since it first emerged around ten years ago. 

While this can depend, there is still much to be done to improve the solution's stability. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

Nexus, which uses NX-OS, runs on a different operating system than CatOS, which means that the latter tends to run on OS - just like a Cisco router - only with the functioning being a bit different. While NX-OS is very different, even when it comes to the command line, most things are the same.

However, NX-OS already introduced a different concept, which is more like a carrier level. They have a dedicated command management module. All other modules have comparatively many more functions or power than regular Catalyst switches.

Nexus' primary focus is on the data center and supports what are known as top-of-rack or end-of-rack features, including the cost of cabling. So too, the latest one, the Nexus 9K, also supports a software-defined cloud with Cisco ACI, which is what this is referred to when typically deployed inside the company.

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We are talking about a network portion. Catalyst and Nexus switches are all part of the network domain.

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten, as it is a new platform. 

We got it for its port density. Our primary use case of this solution is so we can connect all of our other departments and agencies. It'll be the main connection to our core routers. I don't work directly on it, I work with the router that connects to it. 

It has improved our organization because we have aggregated ports and we're able to put multiple agencies on the multiple different interfaces that we have going there. We're able to separate them out with the use of VLANs and whatnot.

The VLAN is a little more hand driven now. I don't know exactly why the split screen does that.

If we could get some more automation integrated into it, it would make it easier.

As far as I know, it's been stable the entire time we've had it. 

We haven't surpassed the scalability at this point. 

I haven't had to use their technical support for this solution but I have used Cisco support in general. They're outstanding. 

We knew we needed to switch solutions because when we migrated to Cisco as a network, we needed a good way to could control a lot of our outside agencies.

We did the deployment ourselves and we have a reseller that sells us the equipment. 

We do yearly licensing. 

I would rate this solution an eight or nine out of ten. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to research what your actual needs are so that you size it correctly. You can always upgrade size. It's harder to downgrade.

This solution manages our data center and is our core infrastructure switch. All of our firewalls and application servers terminate into the 5K.

The most valuable feature is its flexibility. You can put different blades in it to give scalability, but it is older technology.

This solution is only scalable to a degree.

This is a very expensive product.

Areas in which the solution have room for improvement are the interface, management, and reporting. You still have to go deep into the CLI to find issues.

This is a very stable solution. I have a separate model, a 7K, that has been up and running for seven and a half years.

The scalability of this solution is limited. You can only add so much hardware capacity to them, and because it's hardware based, you can't get the new features sets without putting new switches in.

Technical support is very robust. The Nexus line is the backbone of Cisco's data center. Anytime I have had to call technical support for anything, they have been able to assist us.

As a solution reaches end-of-life you replace it. We're using the Nexus 5K right now, and we're probably going to start looking at the 9Ks as these reach end-of-life.

The hardware that existed pre-5K was replaced before I joined the company.

The initial setup took place before I joined the company.

We used CBTS to assist us with our implementation.

This is a solid, reliable solution, but it is very expensive and it can only scale to a degree.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

This solution is used as the core and access switches in our largest data center. We have several of them that make up our 40-gigabit uplink.

From my perspective, this is a nice solution. These units are easy to work with and they have a lot of features that you can't get anywhere else. It gives me an unparalleled ability to build out my environment differently than I would have if I was going with another vendor. This is true even if I was going with a Catalyst model instead of a Nexus model.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its stability. We don't have any problems with them, ever. It doesn't matter how much we hammer them or load stuff up on them, they never give us any trouble. I cannot say that for many other platforms that I operate, so I am really pleased with that aspect.

The ability to troubleshoot on this model is very good, and far beyond what you get on a different model. We have had some weird issues in our data center, and this has helped us in that regard. Sometimes you need a tech to help you with it because it's a little too complex, but at least you can see the data. I wish I could say that about, pretty much, anything else I have.

I would like to see Duo directly integrated with the Nexus hardware, instead of it being through the proxies, like how Duo works today. The way it works now really irritates me.

There is a lot of depth in the Nexus class, and it would help to make this more accessible to the users. We, for instance, are using them no differently than we would a Catalyst switch with VPCs. With that in mind, some of the more in-depth features would be nice to have, so having easier access to them would be beneficial.

We have been operating for a year and a half, and we've never had one crash. I couldn't say that for most other platforms.

We have not had an opportunity to scale this solution, but it seems very scalable. The VPC, virtual port channels, and the virtual domains, together, allow you to scale endlessly. I have never seen any problems with them.

I love Cisco Smart Net. It is the best thing in the business. I've never dealt with another vendor that comes even close to Smart Net.

This solution was integrated before I started, but we used to have Cisco 7K and 5K models. When we built the new data center, which was necessary after our company split in two, the 9K made more sense. It was the right choice for us at that point.

The initial setup seemed pretty straightforward. These units were a little different, compared to the Nexus 5K that I came from. Some commands are a little different, but other than that, it was easy to do.

There are a lot of more complex features in the Nexus class that we aren't using today, so maybe it would have been harder if we were using some of those. But, for a basic setup, it was easy enough.

We used a third party, Logicalis. The sold us the product and performed the basic installation. The VPCs were built, the management and IP configuration were completed before we took it over.

I felt like we paid for more than we got, but that was ok. They got the job done and we didn't have time for it. At the end of the day, I would rate them a three out of five.

Every Cisco product is more expensive than competitors on the market, which is just a fact, but from my perspective, it is worth it.

Our company is locked into one vendor for purchasing, which is a board decision. The only time we can use another vendor is if they sell it as part of a solution. Logicalis was the only vendor that had the solution we wanted, so that's who we went with.

This solution is ACI compatible, but we did not have time to get them on ACI before we went live. As a result, they will not make it to ACI.

There is always room for improvement, but I really love this solution. These devices do not give me any headaches. I design enough solutions for our company where, if they give me headaches, they come back out. It's that simple. I don't have time to keep going back and cleaning up the solutions that I've already installed.

If you want something that that is rock solid and you don't have to worry about, then go buy yourself some Nexus 9Ks. It's that simple.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus especially when we have bigger datacenter projects for organizations such as banks where the operations of all subsidiaries and sister companies are controlled from the head office.

The redundancy and the vPC are the most valuable features. We can integrate two switches together for file transfers; that is, we can operate two switches as one. This is because the network can be shared via a vPC trunk, particularly for devices that are not critical for redundancy.

There is limited guidance in terms of the use and configuration of Cisco Nexus for specific use cases. The documentation is not comprehensive, and you have to do a lot of online research.

I would like to have web interface configuration of the GUI in the next release. It would be good to be able to instruct via the GUI and then do the background commands.

I would also like, in terms of tracking for HSRP features, active-passive links when using multiple active-passive links. It would be great to have data automation.

I've been using it for almost 12 years.

It is a stable product.

In terms of scalability, Cisco Nexus has limitations because you have to configure another vPC domain if you want to extend it.

We have three or four engineers within our company who are experienced at configuring Cisco Nexus, and we have several large corporate clients who use it as well.

The initial setup is easy. It can take a bit of time to test for specific scenarios, but as you become more experienced with configuring for particular services, it can be fast. 

If you want high availability and redundancy in terms of stability, then I would recommend Cisco Nexus. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at eight.

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. 

The primary use case is for Data Center switches.

I like the supportability because it's Cisco. I like the fact that they are a well-supported product. 

I am comfortable with the operating system and I like the regularity of them. 

They are quite straightforward and easy to develop.

I am looking for a GUI that goes alongside them and more SD-WAN built to their core switches.

I'm looking at changing our firewall estate, and at the same time, looking at integrating our firewalls with whatever our core switch solution is going to be. I can't necessarily do that with the costings of a Cisco organization, as they're too expensive.

I have been working with Cisco Nexus for two and a half years.

I am happy with the stability.

It's feature-rich, and they are expandable.

We have approximately a thousand users.

Cisco's technical support and their global footprint are one of the reasons I would stay with Cisco, and I can get their hardware from anywhere in the world.

I wasn't there at the time, but I know who put it in and it was straightforward.

It took a couple of weeks to deploy.

We have two engineers to maintain this solution.

I thought that it would be less expensive. I always thought that Cisco charges more because of who they are, above the product itself. 

Whilst it's the best of the breed, and it's the top right-hand corner at Gartner, I wonder how long that would be attractive.

To others who are interested in this solution, I would say that if you have the money to spend and you want you to want to branch out to the rest of the world, then you should use this solution.

I would rate Cisco Nexus a seven out of ten.

We are using the Cisco Nexus for switching. We use the product for LAN switching, overall switching, and for the data center.

We needed to invest in Cisco solutions because of the Cisco environment. To change that would require some additional learning from our resources. That would be a challenge.

With Cisco, you have the continuity. Upgrade changes have been very good.

We are a Cisco shop. We have continuity with Cisco, which provides a very high-end solution. Converting into digital services, we're in a position to provide lifecycle management.

In future releases, it would be good to have more management on those devices.

Cisco needs to provide more training.

The stability, from a civilian perspective, is excellent.

Scalability depends on when there's no hardware available. We just add another rack and another switch. From an overall perspective, it's a very good product

The TAC, i.e. the technical support for the product, is excellent. That's what Cisco is known for and that's why we like them.

Before, we were all Cisco. Whenever there is a new product, we look at it.

Setup is fairly straightforward. We are a Cisco shop. This is for a lifecycle upgrade from the previous generations, i.e. 3750/3850 to 9000. It's excellent. We are using the 3700.

The return of investment is excellent for the lifecycle. The support gives us a level where we are already in line with the future. 

The licensing is the area that we are working that's a challenge. With smart licensing, it's all new to us. It used to be, we purchased something and the license was IP-based.

With advanced services, you go in and add more depth or details to the license.

I would rate this product with an 8/10 because it is an excellent product but the licensing is the problem. Everything else is good.

I would get as much training as you can.