Cisco UCS B-Series Reviews

Despite the benefits gained from the product implementation, the cost could be more appealing if the overall cost of ownership were reduced.

I have been working with Cisco UCS B-Series since 2014.

I rate the platform scalability as an eight.

The platform is highly scalable, allowing upgrades on demand without replacing the entire machine. 

I have utilized products from other vendors, including IBM, and I am working with Cisco.

The implementation process was very straightforward. The deployment of approximately four servers took about four days.

I have worked with both the on-premises and cloud versions. 

We took help from Cisco engineers working remotely from their offices on the equipment for the implementation.

The implementation enabled us to pay our farmers more promptly, benefiting them financially. We also realized significant savings in operational and maintenance costs, with an overall reduction of approximately 40%.

Considering our market, I rate the pricing of Cisco UCS B-Series as a six.

Cisco UCS B-Series manages various processes, including handling payments for over 650,000 growers, running group financials, managing human resources, and operating our main ERP system, SAP.

The servers' resilience was particularly impactful. Even during power outages, the servers resumed operations from the last saved point without human intervention. The enhanced processing speed also allowed us to complete tasks that took two days in just one hour.

The automation capabilities enhanced efficiency and facilitated integration with our networking components, particularly since we also used Cisco switches. The servers' security was reliable, and formal training on Cisco products made management easier.

I rate the product an eight. 

We've used blades and hyperflex. It's for data center refreshes and greenfield solutions. We've done a lot of HCI Solutions.

We're basically taking old three-tier storage, no compute, networking solutions and then pulled into an ACI solution hyperflex or blades. I've worked on both the UCSX series and also the B series. M6, M7, and M5, and with a lot of fabric interconnects - just pretty much anything and everything for UCF.

Over the years, it's been it's come a long way from going from UCS manager to intersite managed solution. So we're doing a lot of cloud type management where we've been able to use that as which are like tenant managed services solutions with Cisco UCS and Hyperflex. We have managed services. Engineers that do manage all the customer's inter-site portal configurations, and then also we manage all the deployments, and pretty much we build run books and everything for them so that they know how to customers know how to how to work with their the hard new hardware for the hyperflex environments. Overall infrastructure-wise, we manage that for them, and they just manage internally.

It's modular. You can get higher-density blades within the 5108 chassis and the 9508 chassis. With the X series, it's even better, as you can add bigger blades and more processing and memory. It is a lot more resource-intensive and scalable. 

The solution is stable.

The setup is straightforward. 

InterSite is still working on a lot of bugs. Specifically, going from UCF's manager to all strictly interstate-managed environments, there have been a lot of challenges. It is a challenging environment as far as migration from UCS manager director to strictly an inter-site managed in the cloud. Cisco's still working out those bugs. We've been doing a lot of troubleshooting.  

I would like to see more density within the blades compared to HPE and other Dell blades. They do have more slots available. However, the UCSX series that's going to be a game-changer. I'm going through advanced architect training for that engineering training for that product as well. I foresee that X is probably going to replace the C or B series blades since you'll be able to get more density. In the end, you may be able to get double the nodes per slot.

The solution is expensive.

Sometimes, support isn't as fast or knowledgeable as customers need them to be.

I've used the solution for probably over ten years. 

It's pretty stable. I'd rate the reliability eight out of ten. 

The B series is pretty scalable. You can have several chassis within an FI pair. Then you could have multiple UCS domains. Now, with the InterSite, you can have multiple configurations more so than the UCSB series with the InterSite managed solutions where you can have B series and you can have both UCS manager and InterSite yet you can't have both. With the UCS X series available, that's another game change.

Our customer base definitely intends to increase usage.

From a partner perspective, we pretty much can troubleshoot more in-depth than some of the tech engineers. We've had a lot of tech engineer engagements with our large customers, and wasn't that I wasn't that impressed. They just seemed not to have a full understanding of what the customer issues were, and that took a long time to sort out. 

They also had multiple tech engineers involved. That prolonged the overall support for the customer. We jumped in and had more expertise, and we were able to help solve the issue before the tech in a lot of cases.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward. 

You can deploy on-premises. We've also worked with customers in remote installations where they would rack a stack, and then we would do a remote configuration on everything if it's through either a VPN or a Webex session, a Cisco secure Webex session. If it's InterSite, we can pretty much do it remotely. There's no UCS manager available to support that now, and everything's pretty much in the cloud managed, which is nice.

I typically note a three-year ROI.

The solution is pricey, and Cisco's prices change every month - or, at least, it seems that way. It's a constant challenge for our customers. However, we work with account executives at Cisco and work to get discounts. 

New users need to definitely understand how the UCF manager works. They need to understand InterSites, fabric interconnects, and how everything connects both up links to the northbound core switches and make sure all the connectivity is correct. 

Connectivity is a big issue. If you don't have the right connectivity configured specifically for the UCS manager with the FIs and also the fabric modules coming off the chassis, there will be a lot of issues. I've seen a lot of attack-related issues going forward. Users need to make sure that they have everything configured correctly.

I'd rate the solution eight 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.

The most valuable feature that the B-Series has is related to the structure and architecture of the solution because in these solutions, you are using fabric interconnect as an interconnect device. The beauty of fabric interconnect is that it can work as in-house mode.

Fabric interconnect is the main component in the UCS solution. Fabric interconnect can act as two modes. One is in-house mode, and the other one is switching mode. The recommended one is in-house mode. When it works in in-house mode, it means that it won't process any storage, like flagging things, zoning, etc. It won't process Spanning Tree Protocol either. It will just proxy everything to the higher switch.

For example, if you have storage network traffic, the fabric interconnect won't process your flagging. It will make a proxy, and send it to your NPIV storage switch. It acts literally as in-house, and that makes the solution and architecture very easy, convenient, and scalable.

The other important feature is the switch technology that Cisco uses on their chassis. It's not like those of other brands. The beauty of Cisco is that with traffic interconnect, your network and storage won't come down to the chassis level.

It will stop at the fabric interconnect, and the traffic between the fabric interconnect and the chassis acts very similar to the fixed technology that Cisco uses between 2K and 5K. This means that the same architecture and the same technology that we use between 2K and 5K is used between the fabric interconnect and the IO module that's used at the back of the chassis.

This means that when you are using the IOM input/output module, the IOM module on the back of the chassis will not be like a regular switchboard. It will be just IO. So, this means that it is scalable. You can add as many chassis as you want to this whole solution, and you can remove them. You can move one chassis to another chassis. You can move one server from chassis one to chassis eight or chassis seven. You can have a lot of clusters. You can have a lot of failovers over the whole package.

Recently, with the new chassis, UCS X-Series, that Cisco recently introduced to the market, it is much more scalable.

The license is expensive.

Cisco should decrease the delay in the delivery of their products.

It's very stable.

Cisco UCS B-Series is more scalable because of the blade servers. It's one of the most scalable solutions in the whole world.

The licensing cost is a little bit expensive because by default, it depends on your fabric interconnect model. Most of the time, however, Cisco provides a lot of promotions to the customers, so the cost can be waived for many projects. The price of the chassis itself is fair.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at ten.

We do support to customers as a managed service provider. We use Cisco UCS B-Series, particularly the M5, M4, M3, and M2 series for them.

With Cisco UCS, the onboarding of new servers and the scalability of infrastructure is much faster compared to other products. It offers more redundancy and resilience.

The most valuable aspect of Cisco UCS B-Series is its network interface, HBA settings, and less connectivity as compared to rack servers. The scalability and easy management of the lifecycle, upgrades, and hardware failures are also valuable.

The initial setup and service profile deployment can be tricky and should be improved for ease of use.

I have been working with Cisco UCS B-Series for more than ten years.

The solution's architecture provides easy manageability and operational excellence once familiar with the processes.

Cisco UCS allows for good scalability through centralized management, enabling easy firmware and driver upgrades across multiple chassis from one place.

Cisco provides excellent technical support within SLA parameters, making the experience very positive.

Positive

The initial setup can be quite complex and time-consuming compared to other servers. The service profile deployment requires familiarity, but once known, it facilitates easier administration.

Cisco UCS is cost-effective compared to other blade servers like HPE c7000 and Dell chassis. However, the specifics are not immediately available to me.

I would recommend Cisco UCS B-Series for those looking for a scalable blade server solution. I advise trying the product to see if it meets their needs.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.

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.

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.