Cisco UCS B-Series Reviews

The stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization.

The management interface needs a lot of improvement. As it is right now, it's a pain to use. It's not user-friendly.

For some clients, it may be useful if it was possible to switch the role for a server. I myself am running a VMware shop and so I would not personally gain any benefit from this, however, I see the value it would have for others - especially service providers.

I've been working with this solution for seven years at this point. It's been quite a while now.

The stability of the solution is fantastic. It's one of the greatest selling features. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches. It's extremely reliable.

The solution scales pretty well. We have not had any issues with that.

Currently, I'm the only one using the product in our organization.

I've never used technical support, so I can't speak to their level of knowledge or responsiveness.

I also have worked with IBM as well. 

At the time, the biggest difference was pricing. Also, there is the ability to switch roles or templates on the servers within IBM. However, it's not anything I have had any use for.

In our case, the solution's initial setup was not straightforward. It was rather complex.

It was part of a FlexPoint solution. And it was one of the first FlexPoint solutions delivered in the country. It was not the same solution delivered as the salesperson had promised.

You can typically get reasonable pricing on the solution. The hardware itself, however, isn't the biggest cost. The biggest cost is licensing, and that can be quite expensive.

If there are other organizations considering the solution, I'd strongly advise that they get training on the management side. It's very important to do this in order to successfully implement and use the product.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this solution at a seven. It's good, however, it could use a simpler management structure. Cheaper licensing would go a long way as well. The UCS isn't the expensive part. It's more the Microsoft and VMware and the cost of running that.

We use it for computing and virtualization. All the blade servers are used for database uploads.

We are a system integrator. So, we sell multiple type of software and hardware solutions. We implement solutions and provide support. 

We have multiple versions of the solution currently running. It depends on our customer.

The overall consolidation of hardware is helping us.

• Manageability
• Performance

I can connect Cisco UCS B-Series to multiple chassis and rack servers using a unified platform, then manage them on a single console.

The solution is stable. We haven't encounter any failures or problems in these particular servers. We have had three to four years without any downtime happening.

The technical support is good from Cisco. The type of service level purchase will determine the level of support response that you receive from Cisco.

The setup is a bit complex in terms of configuration. While as an admin or an end user, it is very easy to use. The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it.

We are the integrator. We use two engineers for the deployment.

The time for deployment depends customer to customer and the number of servers that we deploy. For example, our last deployment took three days.

It requires some basic configuration, then you can just plug and play.

We still have multiple vendors that we work with. It depends on the customer requirements whom we select to work with.

We work with this solution because we find that the technology is superior to others.

We have also evaluated Dell EMC blade and rack servers, along with Cisco rack servers.

Our customers are very happy people.

Centralized Management using UCS Manager, and State less Servers.

Scalability, Flexibility to reuse the same Server with different projects multiple OS (VMware ESXi / Centos, Microsoft Windows) just in minutes by creating new service profiles.

Stability of some of the old versions has afew bugs. Although I have to mention that Cisco has been releasing revised versions of Firmware very quickly to fix the bugs.

More then one year

No, but Cisco UCS is a complex system, it is very easy to deploy if you have the knowledge and understanding of the product, I have recently commissioned a new Cisco UCS Datacenter after all the rack and stack its very easy to manage the product via Cisco UCS Manager.

Some of the version of firmware does have issues but Cisco is very good at fixing the bugs and giving new firmware versions.

Cisco UCS is very good with scalability, this is one of the ups of the Cisco UCS and I have used this a lot.

Very good, as you can expect from Cisco TAC

I have had few issues when upgrading the firmware and the Techsupport of Cisco TAC was very quick in picking up the issue and resolving it.

I'm happy with the Tech Support.

Dell and HP Rack servers, issues with scalability. Space consuming.

Yes it was easy to setup provided you know the basics of Cisco UCS. I have done the low level design for our new site and it was very straightforward.

When it comes to racking I have to admit the chassis is very heavy with all the components as its a 6U chassis. So make sure you remove all the power supply modules and IOM's and Fans then rack it. Once its placed then you can easily slide everything back and blades into the chassis.

We had used a Cisco Partner and they did a very good job.

HP and IBM

Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) provides unified, embedded management of all software and hardware components in the Cisco UCS. It is scalable and it controls multiple chassis and manages resources for thousands of virtual machines.

Cisco UCS B-Series's most beneficial feature is agent management for print. Its performance is rock solid, and its servers are excellent.

The cost of the product is its biggest weakness. It is more expensive than the competitors. 

I have been using Cisco UCS B-Series for 15 years. I have also worked with Cisco UCS C-Series and Cisco UCS X-Series.

We use Cisco UCS B-Series predominantly and have 50 end users in our organization.

It is easy and less time-consuming to deploy the software. The time taken for the process usually depends on the size of the installation. We had a team of around ten administrators for the implementation.

Cisco UCS B-Series is highly-priced. It is suited for medium and large enterprises.

It is a good tool. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I use this solution for general company services, including file-sharing, Microsoft services, active directory services, and backup solutions.

The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series.

The graphic code that UCS can support is limited and less accessible than other systems. 

I've been using this solution for three years.

This solution is stable and powerful - we've had no problems with it.

The scalability is powerful.

The initial setup was complex, and deployment took two-and-a-half years.

UCS is expensive, and we will be migrating to the cheaper HP servers.

Cisco is a huge company that can support a lot of services and has the most powerful website, which means its systems are the most stable. I would advise potential customers to use and enjoy it because it is the greatest experience. I would give this solution a score of ten out of ten.

The solution can be useful for cloud solutions and they are automatized. Everything is automatized, and it's highly available.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good.

Everything is nice and I like that it is centrally managed. 

It's very easy to manage once you have everything set up.

The performance is great.

Technical support is helpful.

We sometimes have small issues with the hardware elements. The network interfaces could be better. The product needs to develop better firmware.  

The solution is difficult to set up. You need to be experienced in the product in order to be able to implement it.

I've used the solution for more than three years in this company, and in my previous company, I used it for two and a half to three years as well. In total, it's been five to six years. 

The solution, for the most part, is pretty stable. There aren't really bugs or glitches and it doesn't really crash or freeze. It's pretty reliable. 

The scalability of the solution is good. 

I'm not sure how many people are actually using the product. In America, we utilize about 3,000 servers and we utilize 4,000 servers ourselves. That's a total of 7,000 servers.

Technical support has been very good. We don't have any complaints. They are helpful and responsive. 

The initial setup can be a bit difficult and complex. This is because everything is centralized. That said, once you have everything deployed and up and running, the maintenance is easy and minimal. While you have to sacrifice something during the installation, after that, it's easier to manage. 

It took us about two months to complete the implementation.

We had a third party that handled the implementation process for us. We had a lot of server blades to set up.

I don't have any visibility on the licensing setup. That's managed by procurement, actually. I don't have any information about it.

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and other organizations. 

Probably the Cisco Integrated Management Controller.

Remote access to the server is very useful.

They use LSI for their RAID, while they may be robust RAID controllers, they lack a lot of functionality that Adaptec or HP Smart array.

Two years.

The LSI controller is very "finiky", even though it had deployment software, the only way to successfully configure the RAID was via the boot command line.

No, we haven't had issues post setup.

Probably the RAID card really limits what the servers are capable of if you require storage.

I haven't needed to deal with technical support yet.

We use this as a potential alternative for HP ProLiant servers.

There are some quirks in the setup (e.g. for non Disk servers, you need to go into the CIMC to enable the SD Card for HyperVisor Installs, not the BIOS) but generally its fairly straight forward.

We haven't had a full life span on the Cisco UCS but so far we have not had to do nearly as much firmware maintenance as the HP Servers.

No but we have used HP for a number of years and IBM before that.

These are good servers for SAN environments, I think their Disks (RAID) need a lot of improvement before you consider them as a storage server.

The Dual Fabric design allows for online/in-service upgrades during production with no impact. Also, single point of management for all server profile and firmware management allows for guaranteed uniformity in the datacenter.

I have deployed 2-3 dozen UCS systems and managed many more for customers. Customers always love the unified management, speed of setup, and the improved performance after migration of workloads to UCS servers.

HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work.

I have deployed and managed Cisco UCS solutions for approximately 5 years.

As with any system, there are very occasional bugs. But Cisco is quick to remedy any issue. Firmware is often already out to fix issues that we run into.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

The technical support is excellent.

I have experience with HP, IBM and Dell rack servers. I switched to UCS when I joined a Cisco partner and learned to deploy UCS.

when customers are first introduced to UCS, the setup is somewhat complex. Yet the learning curve is reasonable.

Cisco UCS is a fantastic product that is widely deployed with excellent support. Additionally, Cisco has developed CVD’s (Cisco Validated Designs) that assist partners and customers to properly deploy Cisco UCS with most major storage vendors. CVD’s are highly detailed deployment guides which are comprehensively tested by Cisco to ensure quick, highly reliable and predictable deployments.