Cisco Nexus Reviews

We are using it for the data center. We have its latest version.

Its low latency is most valuable. Its performance is good, and it is also very stable.

The operating system needs to be improved. There should be stability in the operating system, and it should not have as many vulnerabilities.

It is very expensive. Its price could be better.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is very stable.

It is a really good scalable product. Currently, we have about 50 users. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

I don't have experience with the technical support of Cisco.

We didn't use any other solution previously.

Its installation is straightforward. It only takes 15 minutes.

We do it ourselves. We have about four admins for deployment and maintenance.

It is very expensive. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

We didn't evaluate other options.

I would recommend this solution to others. Cisco is a good vendor to work with.

I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight out of ten.

Our primary use for Cisco Nexus is for storage.

It helps for data servers.

It provides a very flexible connection to a server. When you go into history and the VPC, it provides a very flexible connection from it. Once a server goes down I can handle it easily. So the network actually keeps quality even if onsite it is down.

There is some room for improvement when it comes to the frequency on the network.

I don't work in security so I do not deal with this subject. I just make the network available. I think it's probably good. From the networking point of view, we just provide them the network that is going to be Cisco 9000, but they are using the servers. I have not gotten any complaints. We just deployed less than two months ago.

The technical support is very good. I really like the way Cisco handles support. I am building this 9000 network. I had a lot of issues because of the vast complications you find setting up a network. I knew I could get help from Cisco.

We switched to 400G. We provide 100G on our network. I needed something which can carry 100, so next time this has that option. That is the reason we went with this partner.

As a customer of Cisco, we always have had meetings with them on their new products. We tell them what kind of solution we are looking for and Cisco says for this solution you need this kind of thing.

I would recommend this product. It does not give me any headaches. That is the best thing. There are lots of products, but when you use this, it does not give you any headaches.

It is good because when we went to purchase this, we did not have all the information and knowing that there are a lot of options with all those differences, we had some issues, but it is obvious that this solution is going to do everything that we need. That is fine.

This solution is the backbone of our data center.

We have multiple tenants built on it, in a network-centric design. We have our Dev QA tenant, user acceptance tenant, production tenant, our DMZ, and then our user edge where everything comes in and goes out. We have firewalls in between all of the tenants, and we use ACI to microsegment between the networks, within the tenants. All of the intra-tenant traffic goes through the firewalls.

Prior to our deployment of ACI, everything was, essentially, flat open access. By using ACI we were able to segment out everything and get more visibility into our virtual environment. At our data center, we are 99.99% virtual.

The most valuable feature is the integration with the virtual switches of our UCS platform. It provides a lot of visibility from the ACI console. The ability to tenant-out the traffic and segment it, without having to get into separate physical hardware or trying to figure out VDCs manually, has been really powerful and extremely useful for us.

I would like to see the usability improved by simplifying the user interface. For example, it would be nice to have a simple way to find endpoints and get information about them. It would be great if they could make the interface a little more user-friendly, but not trade power off for simplicity.

This solution has been very stable and functioning properly, and we've barely touched it since it went in. We've got a big project to start doing upgrades on it, but so far so good. We haven't had any issues with it as long as I've been at the company.

In terms of scalability, we haven't grown the deployment, yet, because we're nowhere near capacity. There is a lot of scalability in terms of what we could use, although it's a matter of what we actually need. It seems very scalable, but we just haven't had the need to scale up yet.

I have not had to speak with technical support yet, which speaks to the stability of the product.

The initial setup of this solution is fairly complex. That's one thing about ACI; it takes a bit to wrap your mind around how it works. It's not overly complicated once you understand the concepts, but coming from somewhere that had never worked with anything like ACI, it was difficult for me, initially, to grasp the complexity of it. Once I did, I realized that it's not actually as complicated as it looks when you first log in.

We have used a couple of consultants over the years. I believe it was BT that assisted with the original deployment, and it is Presidio that is working on our upgrade project.

My understanding is that the people from BT were great. With respect to Presidio, they know their stuff, and they seem to be putting together good, concrete plans for our system.

I believe that we have seen ROI. We have been able to streamline our processes dramatically because of the way that the new architecture works. While it was a large investment, I believe that it has had a big impact on the productivity of our systems, in general.

There are still a lot of things that we have yet to do with this system, in particular with the APIs and scripting. Also, there are a lot of additional features that we haven't had a chance to look at yet because we haven't upgraded.

Not a lot of people in my area are familiar with this solution. It is kind of new and scary, so a lot of people are a little wary of it. However, now that I've had some time with it, I find it very powerful. Having direct access to virtual switches is a huge advantage. 

My advice to anybody researching this solution is to take a good look at it because it is great for segmenting your network. Make sure that you get a lot of training as part of your deployment, including education on how it works and why the design is the way it is, or what the best practice design is if you're looking at creating your own.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for our new data center.

This solution has improved our redundancy.

The most valuable feature is the HSRP (Hot Standby Router Protocol).

I would like to see better collaboration with other, low-end devices.

This is a stable solution.

I think that it scales well. For what we use it for, it has been great. Right now, we have a ten-gig network, but it can scale up to forty-gig, which is really good.

Technical support for this solution is great.

Prior to this solution, we used ePlus. We switched in the move to newer technology. 

We have a vendor for products, but we do not just go with what they suggest. We do our homework, in-house, as well.

There are many good things about this product including the reliability, scalability, and of course, security. This is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for our data center switches.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its reliability.

We have encountered some software bugs.

I have a positive impression of the stability of this solution.

I'd say that this solution is very scalable.

This solution has really good technical support. They generally respond by email, and it is really quick. They usually respond within a couple of hours.

I joined the company after this solution had been implemented.

My understanding is that the initial setup was pretty straightforward.

This is a really good product and something that I'm really familiar with. Anybody who has decided to implement this solution is making a good choice.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Nexus could also have better documentation.

Moreover, it would be nice if the solution offered multiple types of port support. It does not have, for example, a single switch for both internet and fiber ports. 

I have been using Cisco Nexus for around 10 years.

The solution has demonstrated stability thus far. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is fine.

For Cisco, we use Nexus and 2900.

The initial setup is easy.

As I deal with the technical aspects of the solution, I am not in a position to comment on the price. 

We consider Juniper switches to be more affordable.

I use the solution in my own company. It works.

There are around 500-plus devices being utilized in our organization. 

My advice to others is that they get initial hands-on experience in a lab environment. This should involve a proper grasp of the solution's features, such as that which concerns troubleshooting and may involve a different setup. Only at this point should one enter the production stage. 

I rate Cisco Nexus as a seven out of ten. 

Our primary use for this solution is enterprise networking.

The ease of integration with existing systems has been helpful.

This is a very feature-rich solution, but the most valuable feature is flexibility.

The interface is as user-friendly as you can make it.

There are too many different model numbers and too much complexity. The Nexus 9K, for example, came from a family of twenty offerings.

This is a very stable solution.

The scalability of this solution is very good.

Technical support for this solution is very good.

Based on client demand, which was moving towards software-defined networking, the Nexus 9000 was the next step. We used the prior generation, Catalyst, before this.

The initial setup of this solution is fairly straightforward. It is very user-friendly.

The return on investment for this solution is very good. It is very practical and versatile.

We did not have other vendors on our shortlist.

This is a very good product, although it would be nice to restrict the number of offerings. My suggestion is to evaluate ACI, SDN, and the Nexus 9000.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is network connectivity.

It's based on the Cisco line of products, so a lot of people are trained with them.

The most valuable feature of this solution is user configurability.

In the next release of this solution, Cisco should keep trending on ease-of-use, with more human or regular language and commands.

Maybe they could add some machine learning and AI integration. Ease-of-use and making things more human-readable is most important.

Cisco Nexus is very stable.

It is very scalable.

The Cisco Nexus technical support is very good.

We needed to invest in a new solution because of speed. We used older versions of Cisco Cloud. The reason why we switched was just adapting with the times.

The initial setup is straightforward with the right training. Search out there, find a lot of knowledge before you begin.

I did the setup myself.

The license on a yearly basis is $200,000.

Cisco was on the shortlist with Extreme and Juniper. We chose Cisco because there was integration with other Cisco equipment in the data center.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight to nine.