Cisco UCS B-Series Reviews

We are using it in the converged infrastructure with the common UCS Manager to push out:

• Profiles
• Firmware
• Console access
• VLAN configurations
• Troubleshooting

Running in the VCE Vblock gives us the flexibility to deploy a large virtual workload of servers. We use a mix of mainly Windows servers and a few Linux appliances.

I had one blade server fail. The replacement was up and operating quickly after the blade server was swapped over.

Smaller locations are held up where they use a pair of converged infrastructure interfaces for redundancy.

To deploy a standard Cisco Blade system with redundancy for maintenance and reliability you have to purchase two converged infrastructure 6296 or 6396 interface / switches, and the chassis, uplink interfaces, plus the blade servers to drop in one or more blade chassis. From my point of view the initial cost to do this for a small regional office where we usually have the computer in a dedicated network closet for the switches and servers.

Cisco does now have a “Mini” solution where they have put the converged infrastructure and management into the chassis via the slots where the uplink interfaces normally install. This setup can support multiple blades and even external C series chassis in a converged environment all sharing some form of external storage from what I have read but never used or experienced.

Most of my companies need is for data distribution from a file sharing server(s), a domain controller and possibly a local database server. I can cover this all in one 2U server from another company that I can cram in 3-6 TB of DAS / RAID disks for file storage with enough RAM and CPU cores in 2 sockets to cover my compute / VM needs.

My demands for servers in most remote sites are different than most. Our end-users all have either a laptop or powerful CAD workstation to do their engineering on. We don’t do VDI via VDI terminals. We do use VDI for engineering apps in 2D on our VBlock and in C-Series UCS servers with NVidia shared video cards for CAD / 3D rendering in our VDI pools.

The original M2 servers were in operation for more than five years. The new M4s have been up for under a year.

There was only one server failure during my use of 24 blades in my old system. There were 20 blades in my new/replacement implementation. In reality, this is a small installation.

We have not encountered any scalability issues. We added blades and upgraded memory along the way. We had open slots in the chassis and added additional blades. We upgraded the RAM in existing systems for more VM headroom.

There were no issues with technical support, as most was handled via VCE.

We had standalone 2U servers from HPE that were tied to a SAN for shared storage.

Limited memory expansion was what we had previously. We did dual Vblock installations to absorb the multiple little clusters of VM hosts that we had on separate servers.

We still use HPE servers as standalone VMware hosts in smaller sites.

The newer generation HPE servers have very high disk capacity servers where we can get 3 TB of disk in a 2U host.

The Vblock system was installed and operational at handover. We had to provide IP ranges for servers, management interfaces, etc. However, the VCE installation teams did the actual configurations of the hosts, SAN, and network connectivity.

Although I was not completely involved in the pricing or licensing costs, I do have to monitor licensing allocation of VMware CPU licenses.

I know that Cisco licenses the number of ports and uplinks on various interfaces inside the Vblock. However, we have not done any upgrades beyond our initial purchase of the replacement Vblocks to run into any new licensing additions.

We looked at other considerations, such as BladeSystem from HPE and standalone server stacks, at least five years ago when we purchased the original set of Vblocks.

It was the only integrated system that fit our needs. It filled the requirement for new computing power, an updated network, and SAN storage. It also filled the expansion possibilities of a data center in a box with almost one point of contact for support.

Look closely at your needs.

• Do you need more computing power and memory or storage expansion possibility?
• Do you need redundancy in installation sites HA/DRS?
• If you do HA/DRS, does it need to be near real-time disk writes, or more managed recovery/failover?

We get a few deployments here and there. Maybe we did one, two, or three years ago. Recently, we have done some blade architecture, but from Cisco. It's primarily about customer preference, so some customers prefer Cisco UCS.

In terms of ROI, our customers are very happy with Cisco UCS B-Series. For instance, a customer we worked with five years ago, a utility company, is very happy and is even planning to do a refresh because the solution has been running without many issues in terms of downtime and support tickets. Once you set it up the right way, you're good to go.

The most valuable feature is the service profiles. When you get a faulty blade, all you need to do is just decommission that blade and plug in a new one. The decommissioned blade is associated with the service profile, and you connect a new blade, associating it with the same profile the older blade had. This allows for the same settings, like the MAC addresses, management IPs, and worldwide port names for the storage to be retained, making maintenance quite easy.

Regarding improvements, there's a drawback with the FC functionality being removed from the Nexus switches, which we used to do integration with. Now, this requires having a different standalone switch for storage connectivity. Previously, the unified port functionality allowed the same port to function as both FC and Ethernet, however, this has now changed.

I can say it's been a while since we first started using Dell PowerEdge M. We don't deploy it every now and then, however, we did one deployment two or three years ago. Recently, we have been working with blade architecture from Cisco.

In terms of stability, our customers are very happy. There's a customer who has been using the solution for five years without many issues in terms of downtime and support tickets.

The technical support from Cisco is efficient. If the issue is a priority one, you can get on a call and have a technical engineer assigned right away. They are very efficient.

Positive

The initial setup is very straightforward and easy. It enables integration with multiple storage vendors. You can also tightly integrate it with VMware for managing distribution switches and virtual networks.

We have a team behind that does the fieldwork. I oversee and come in when needed to position products for customers, proposing and advising in terms of OpEx and CapEx.

Our customers have had good ROI with Cisco UCS B-Series. For example, a utility company has been using it for five years without significant issues and is planning a refresh.

The pricing depends on the size of the deal. If the deal is huge, you get better margins from Cisco. Also, if you were the one who initiated the deal, you get a better margin over other partners.

I use the solution in my company in our virtual environment along with VMware, and it hosts around 23 virtual servers while also being able to offer features in the area of unified collaboration in our call center.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it offers reliable and easy functionalities. It can be used in a very easy manner, making it not a complicated tool.

The high price of the solution is an area of concern where improvements are required.

The product lacks to offer AI functionalities along with integration capabilities. From an improvement perspective, I want some AI features to be included to enhance the integration capabilities of the tool.

I have been using Cisco UCS B-Series for around two months.

It is a very stable solution, like a rock.

Until now, I haven't used the scalability feature of the product. I will have to use the scalability features of the product after five to six years of usage of the product.

If I consider the use of the solution in my company, I would say that there are around 600 endpoints in my organization.

There are 90,00,000 users of the solution.

I have worked with different products from Cisco since it is the DNA of our company's network, as it looks after our infrastructure network, which includes Cisco Core Switches and Cisco Access Switches.

The product's initial setup phase was complex. The product's initial setup phase is not easy for anyone.

For the deployment process, I have a third party person in Egypt who I contact to help with the implementation, designing and so want to improve the solution and to make it work correctly in our company's environment.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Around 51 developers are required to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the tool.

There is always a need for a third-party provider or a partner to take care of the setup phase of the tool in your environment. My company's in-house team can manage the tool's deployment process.

The benefit of the product stems from the reliability and the dependability offered. You need to learn to be satisfied with the product, and it is not worth worrying until everything becomes bad with the product.

In my opinion, everything related to the product is very expensive right now. Every three years, I need to renew my license and support the product. I don't have to pay any extra costs in addition to the standard licensing charges attached to the product. Every time I have to opt for the renewal of the license, I am shocked to learn about the increase in the price of the product. If you purchase a solution for a particular amount, and then during the renewal process, you learn that you need to pay double the amount of what you had paid previously, you will definitely feel that you are paying a lot of money.

In terms of the ability of the product to improve our company's data center's computing efficiency, I feel that it is a very good solution for me right now, especially in areas like production and workflow. I am very satisfied with the product.

I think that every product from Dell, Cisco, HPE, or any other vendor can be well-integrated with the solutions in any infrastructure.

The most valuable feature of the product for workload optimization stems from the fact that I use the many dashboards offered by the tool. With the tool, I have many separate dashboards. I don't have just one in the dashboard where I can see the integration and take care of the management.

To others who plan to use the product, I can say that Cisco UCS B-Series can be good for networking but very bad with the security part.

In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution. I can recommend the solution to others who plan to use it. Cisco doesn't need any recommendations from my end because it is the backbone of the networking infrastructure throughout the world, and it is currently present in 70 percent of the market share.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for our network system.

The product is easy to use. It's user-friendly.

The product could be made more secure.

I have been using the solution for approximately three or four years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a nine or ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. We have 30,000 users.

The technical support is fast.

The initial setup was easy. Our IT department deployed the solution in our organization.

We use Cisco because of its VPN. I will recommend the product to others. It is easy to use and easy to connect. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

We are running many applications for a logistics provider. We do the storing of goods for our partners and transport and so on.

The most valuable features of the solution are stability and security.

The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper.

I have been using Cisco UCS B-Series for five to six years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability so far.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s scalability. Around 1,000 to 2,000 users are using the solution in our organization, and we may plan to increase the usage.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

We have to pay a monthly licensing fee for the solution.

We have a team of around 50 people to deploy and maintain the solution. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use it as a stand-alone for computing only in HyperFlex. Using multiple projects and VDI projects, you can utilize distribution and access codes to find the storage that works for various solutions and scenarios.

They have management on the enterprise side. So, we manage directly through Fabric internet or the rack-mounted directly, whether on-premise, on the cloud, or private.

The most significant benefit of the blade itself is its stethoscope-like functionality. You can remove and reinsert the blade and attach the service profile if any hardware is damaged. This is the main objective of the solution. Additionally, we can leverage it in a hybrid infrastructure. We are also authorized to integrate the solution with other vendors. They have a wide range of offerings, and we integrate HyperFlex, which is merged with fabric and implemented with the ACI or Application Centric Infrastructure, to advance software defense solutions.

The price of the solution can be improved.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We have more than 52,000 customers using this solution. We have it installed in banking, government entities, and private sectors.

The initial setup is not easy. You should know or understand the data center, particularly when integrating with SAN, NAS storage, or NFS.

It generally takes 30 minutes to an hour for basic tasks. However, it may take several days to involve blade integration and integration with other systems. The project's timeline depends on various factors, such as integration requirements, scope, and configuration tasks. Based on these considerations, we can estimate the number of days required for integrating the object.

First of all, we gather information from the customer regarding the project's purpose. The project has multiple components, such as configuring IBM Athena for management, aligning with the latest stable software, and configuring service profiles based on the project scope.

Once we complete these tasks, we will move on to system administration, which includes providing a visual interface and configuring the operating system. Depending on the scenario, we will decide whether to install a hypervisor or directly install the working system on the server. This decision will be based on the sandbox environment we have.

Cisco UCS does not require a license. However, this license is not specific to users. In collaboration with the tech team, it also controls and stores other components, such as hypervisors, JES control, technology integration, and analytics.

It integrates with all other solutions, including building and internal solutions.

Overall, I rate the solution nine out of ten.

We host mostly our production environment in these Blades. We choose this series due to the reliability/stability and for ease of scalability. We are a 24/7 business and uptime is most critical for us. Stable environment with 99.99% uptime including a good scalable architecture is something like "Gold with Fragrance"

Management wise, I liked the "Service Profile" concept where we can create the appropriate profiles for the blades and just deploy them with ease. Time management and getting the configuration right is important so that there are no hassle during the initial setup. Performance wise, I like it better than the HP Proliant servers.

We jumped from old HP servers to this UCS and, of course, we very much like it in terms of its security, its interface, its functionality, the CPU, the memory and its central management interface. The computing power that it's given us has greatly improved the processing of our system. Overall, it's good.

Integration with the storage to get a heatmap of what's going on in the storage site could be improved -- the dashboard, that kind of thing. We have a virtualized environment and it's the same dashboard that links together the front end, the VMware and the backend storage. We have to use multiple views, multiple solutions for that. We log in to multiple places to see what's going on in the storage, what's going on in the switches, on the Blades, on the VMware. It would be great if there was a single platform, a dashboard that could integrate all of those. That kind of improvement wouldn't just help me but would also benefit management. If they want to see what's going on, for example, to get a five-year forecast, and the dashboard could show how much space is left for computing power, or show that something is not working, that would make a difference. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

I especially like the scalability aspect because, compared to the HP servers that we had before, those were rack-mount servers whereas the Blade is just a plug and play. If we need more computing power, we just bring a new Blade and plug it in and auto-conservation setup in the profiler takes over the new Blade and it's that easy. We are a team of three admins using this solution. 

We haven't had a chance to contact Cisco for any issues because everything has been running smooth and fine. And we have our corporate team as well. If there's an issue we reach out to them first before reaching out for support. It's been three years and we haven't had any major issues, we've been able to solve anything that's come up. 

In short, management with a central dashboard is really good as compared to the older HP Proliant environment. You have a bird's eye view of your infrastructure through the dashboard.

The initial setup was pretty good. It was a new thing for us and took us some time, but it was good, it was straightforward. We had to deploy it here first to make sure everything was up and running. It required a lot of regression tests before moving it to the actual production site and that's what took time. It wasn't the time taken to configure it, but the time taken to deploy the whole system in the production site. We did the deployment ourselves. 

Having experience with the product for over 5 years, the ROI is definitely over our expectations. The level of performance improvement has increased in such a way that we are able to scale up with the ability to process more data (faster), making our customers happy with the output. 

Price wise, Cisco B-series was better. 

We compared it with HP C7000 series blade infrastructure but the Cisco B-Series cost that was presented to us and the comparison of performance details were superior.

I haven't had experience with others series, like the C-Series. I hope they are good but so far, after three, four years, this has been good and we haven't had any issues. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use the solution to host all of our USX. The solution was deployed for the hypervisor.

The most valuable feature is definitely the service profile. I feel it provides a more stable environment, with very few issues with the hardware or fabric. These issues are rare and usually minor.

The cost is expensive and has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for almost eight years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support was excellent; it was professional and very effective. The support I received was satisfactory, although it may have been due to the fact that my issue was not particularly significant.

The initial setup was straightforward and we have not encountered any issues in a very long time. I believe the FCOE protocol has been improved since we first used it, as the IQ N number was not generated automatically. This was the only issue I have encountered with Cisco UCS, but since then it has been quite stable and robust.

The solution is definitely expensive. Compared to the more in-demand hyper-converged environments such as Nutanix or DVX rail, Cisco UCS B-Series is even more costly due to the expensive fabric interconnects. The only benefit we will get when adding more chassis to the two fabrics is the ability to scale up. Therefore, if we are only using two, three, or four chassis, the cost is high.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

We have four people that use the solution and one person who is primarily responsible for any related UCS.