Cisco UCS B-Series Reviews

The solution is being used for our internal use along with VMware.

The solution is very unified and the technical team is very supportive, no help is needed from outside vendors. 

Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware. 

I have been using Cisco for the last ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

It is a scalable solution. A total of fifty users are using the solution at the moment. 

The technical support team is knowledgeable, customer-friendly and fast in their responses. 

As long as one knows the process, the installation is straightforward. The deployment takes a week's time as it's a big installation. A group of engineers are required for the deployment. The deployment is done by taking track installations and then a few more updates and putting them under the sphere, and you should be using Cisco UCS Manager for the updates.

I have seen a return on investment. 

Cisco is compatible with Mac and Dell. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the product for hosting our servers.

The platform provides robust compute power for hosting our servers.

The product pricing needs improvement. 

We have been using Cisco UCS B-Series for a year. 

Cisco's technical support is top-notch. They've been responsive and helpful whenever we've needed assistance.

Positive

We used Dell previously but have since used Cisco and HPE solutions exclusively.

The product cost is high compared to HPE solutions. However, maintenance and support services are included in the standard licenses for the first three years. 

Managing Cisco UCSB B-Series has been straightforward. While we've also used HPE in the past, both platforms offer similar manageability features. 

The documentation and support have been comprehensive. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. These systems are for advanced data.

The template feature is very good, and it works well.

The Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location.

I like the level of complexity that this product offers because I have a lot of relevant knowledge, which makes troubleshooting and performance tuning easier.

This product uses a converged network adapter because it is the only way to provide flexibility with both fiber and ethernet connections.

I have been working with the Cisco UCS B-Series for approximately three years.

This is a stable product. However, if the customer is using devices from different vendors on the same network then there can be some small problems.

This product is very much scalable. Once you are using active/passive devices, you can switch them depending on the needs of the infrastructure.

Only one of my clients has this device implemented.

The technical support is very good. They are very knowledgeable and have taught us a lot.

I work with a variety of Cisco products. For example, I have a lot of clients that are using Cisco firewalls. As such, I have a lot of experience with Cisco devices including HyperFlex, UCS, Nexus 7K, 5K, 2K, and 1K virtualization.

Some of my clients are using products from vendors such as HP or Dell, rather than using a Cisco Blade Server. I also have customers using VxRack and VxRail. the Cisco products consume less energy, and I prefer to implement them.

The level of complexity for the initial setup depends on the client. For example, new clients usually only require a normal design. For clients that redesign their network, there is some inherent complexity.

In general, a hyperconverged system is very easy to configure.

This is a premium device and our clients are not as concerned about the reasonableness of the price compared to satisfaction with their productivity.

This is a product that I recommend. If somebody instead chooses to implement a Dell, then they will have a converged system or will be using NetApp. This is much more complex than setting up a hyperconverged system.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Primarily, we use UCS to run our virtualization stack.  

I think UCS is pretty typical of all blade servers in what is most valuable. We use it to try and save rack space. I think the ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good. We have a significant rack space saving in that regard. These B-series can hold up to eight servers.  

In terms of room for improvement, I think there is room for improvement with the service profile. Cisco products are technically quite bulky if you ask me. You really need to be very proficient technically to deploy it and to understand the assignment of the service profiles before you can really make the most of it. The product comes with a lot of technical overhead. I know they have advancements that are coming and I foresee they are ready to address that problem at least to a certain extent.  

For the purposes it is built for, I can not really think of any room for improvement, honestly. It is as advertised; it is doing what it is supposed to in the way the company represents it. I do not think they are really in need of any other improvement this year than what I know they already have on the roadmap. The only thing I can think of might be improving the user-friendliness.  

We have been using Cisco UCS B-series (Unified Computing System) for probably five years.  

The B-series is definitely stable, that is for sure. We rarely have any issues with the B-series. If there are any issues, we are covered by the four-hour response window and we can get parts replaced within a few hours if there's any faulty hardware. Stability is something I would say is over 90 percent better than most other products.  

The scalability of this Cisco product goes without saying because it is what the B-Series was designed to do. You can always add in additional blade servers to your existing chassis. So the scalability is really good and something Cisco built into the product.  

We have had contact with the technical support and this is usually for hardware replacements. That covers faulty memory or CPUs or motherboards — that kind of thing. It is typically day-to-day issues with hardware that we need service for.  

I would say that Cisco really excels in day-to-day operations — if you are talking about hardware replacement and things like that. Their model and framework are really mature. They know exactly what to do. The replacements are fast, the engineer that is assigned also knows what he is doing. So far our experience with Cisco technical support is pretty positive.  

We came to UCS from HP Proliant servers. When we transitioned into the Cisco UCS series, we obviously found that there were pros and cons in comparing these products.  

I think the HP Proliant user interface and user-friendliness are better than UCS. Cisco had an advantage in coming to the market later. They had the advantage in redeveloping and redesigning the server compute from scratch. So they designed it with management in mind. They deployed service profiles and they have a central overview of all the server hardware using the UCS B-series, and I think this was what really convinced us to transition to the Cisco hardware. Of course, the pricing is positioned better than the HP Proliant series which influenced the decision as well.  

Because we already have established the connects and configured the initial instance, putting in additional B-series blades is a breeze because everything is assigned to the service profile.  

So the initial setup depends on "how initial" you are talking about. If you are talking about the very first configuration including the server interconnects setup, then it is a bit cumbersome. If you are talking about additional setups after that, then it is a breeze. You really need in-depth knowledge about how service profiles and assignments are used before you can really make it work. This is coming from someone who had previous experience with the HP Proliant product where they did not really have service profiles. It is a different way of doing things.  

We had the luxury of engaging a vendor, the initial setup was all done by the vendor, which was good for us. It was really fast and was far enough along within half a day that they were able to deploy it.  

Advice that I might want to give to someone considering the product is that I would say they really have to know their own use case to determine whether UCS is applicable as a solution for what they need. The B-Series is really meant for data center deployment. I would not propose or suggest it for small or medium enterprises simply because the initial investment is quite high. You need to get a server interconnection if you get a chance. And if you are not looking to potentially deploy a large number of servers in the near future, then B-series is really not necessary — it is overkill.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the product as a nine-out-of-ten.  

To make it 10, the user-friendliness needs to be improved. Right now the user experience really detracts from the technical abilities of the product. The users need to have too much technical know-how. Cisco should make administration much easier and more straight forward. Maybe there could be some automation and translation of all the operations so that the user does not have to be so technically adept to operate it.  

I use it for telephony. 

The telepresence devices are improved. You can call by phone handset only, video call, and integrate with Teams and other third-party tools.

First of all, Cisco is not going for perpetual licensing. They charge recurring fees every year for everything, even adding phones. Technically, it's good, but that is one fault.

Previously, it was perpetual. Buy it and use it. But now, it has changed. 

I have five years plus experience with it. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability as seven out of ten. Other vendors also have easy deployment methods, sometimes even easier than Cisco.

Our clients are enterprise businesses. 

Overall service and support from Cisco is very good. They give the perfect solution.

They are good, but the warranty claiming process is lengthy. We have to get on calls with different people. The channel partner also charges to claim it. The end-user should have all the privileges to claim the devices directly with Cisco.

Positive

We are not going to use Cisco for our upcoming large telephony project because of the high pricing and recurring charges.

The initial setup is easy. It takes a few hours. 

I am the implementor. 

It's expensive. Cisco is always expensive compared to other vendors.

Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

My company uses Cisco UCS B-Series for multiple use cases. Mainly, we use the product in our company for the general IT infrastructure deployment.

The solution's most valuable feature stems from its massive computing power, so you can have big data or mission-critical applications running on SQL Server.

The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details. The price of the product's license could be improved.

I have been using Cisco UCS B-Series for almost seven years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution, but it requires a lot of the skills to be able to manage and expand the product.

Around six to seven customers of my company work with Cisco UCS E-Series Servers.

The solution's technical support is good and knowledgeable.

The initial setup can be complex, even for someone skilled enough to deploy the product. The deployment is generally not easy since Cisco UCS B-Series directly interacts with Cisco Fabric Interconnect.

The solution can be deployed in five to six days.

The deployment process for Cisco UCS B-Series consists of an approach in which you just provision the servers and upgrade Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnects. Whatever the hypervisor will be, you can take the product to the next level when starting with the product.

An experienced person can handle the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money.

There is a need to pay towards the licensing costs of the solution on a yearly basis. Price-wise, it is an expensive product.

There is an additional cost consisting of the modules a person wants to use, apart from the standard licensing costs of the solution.

Cisco makes it possible for its users to work with the new series of its products, which is Cisco's M6 series blade servers, and Cisco also allows for a lot of enhancements to be made. It is a fine solution for big customers.

Considering the multiple use cases for which the solution can be used, others who plan to use it can consider purchasing and deploying it.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager.

The solution's console could be easier for accessing and managing internal help documents.

We have been using the solution for 15 years.

The solution's stability is good. Although, it is much more complicated regarding usage or management compared to other vendors.

I rate the solution's scalability a seven out of ten. It could be improved.

At present, we have implemented it on Hyper V clusters. We have eight blades on two clusters and six blades on one cluster. In total, we have 250 servers installed from those clusters.

The solution's initial setup process works fine.

The solution is a little more complicated compared to HP and PowerEdge configurations. Also, its KVM manager could be more straightforward similar to other vendors.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

It should have KVM connectivity similar to Dell and HP. Also, HP has a storage blade that helps connect monitors in case of network issues. We can plug in and access the keyboard and mouse to start with the task. It is not possible with Cisco Infrastructure.

Cisco UCS B-Series are the Blade servers where we have installed VMware.

The price of the solution could improve.

I have been using Cisco UCS B-Series for approximately eight years.

The stability of the Cisco UCS B-Series has been good. We have not had a problem.

Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable.

I rate the scalability of the Cisco UCS B-Series a ten out of ten.

The initial setup of the Cisco UCS B-Series is not a problem.

This solution is deployed in India and it is being used all over. We do not have plans to increase usage.

We use a few people for the deployment of the solution.

We have received a strong return on investment.

Cisco UCS B-Series is an expensive solution.

We plan to upgrade the Cisco UCS B-Series in 2024.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco UCS B-Series a ten out of ten.