Cisco UCS B-Series Reviews

The monitoring features and integration with other products can be improved.

In particular, integration with other products is difficult, especially for logging purposes. In this regard, it is not very good and improvement is required.

Technical support should be more timely.

We have been working with the Cisco UCS B-Series for more than a year.

This is a stable product.

The technical support is good although they respond very late to open cases.

One of the other products that we currently work with is Huawei, and they give us much cheaper prices. They also have a good product, which is sometimes even better than Cisco. Nonetheless, my team has a lot of experience and expertise with Cisco.

The initial setup is simple, and not very complex.

The pricing for Cisco products is always high.

My advice for anybody who is considering Cisco UCS is that if it's within your budget, I recommend it because they are popular in the market and it is easy to find experts.

Overall, this is a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

• Virtual NICs/HBA
• Nexus FC/Ethernet convergence

VirtualNICs/HBA allow us to redesign completely the IO schema (network and storage) without needing to upgrade or acquire additional hardware and controllers.

• Hardware platform configuration

I have used this solution for three years. We are currently using Cisco UCS, Chassis Model UCS5108, I/O Modules UCS-IOM-2208XP, Fabric Interconnect Model UCS-FI-6248UP, and Cisco Nexus 5548.

We had some issues with certain NX-OSs in the Fabric Interconnect.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is 7/10.

I did not previously use a different solution. I’ve previous experience with HPE BladeSystem. UCS looks to me more flexible and powerful.

Initial setup was complex. UCS deployment & management requires deep knowledge of the platform.

It is expensive (like all converged platforms). From a cost perspective, UCS must be evaluated seriously in order to determine if the company requirements justify the acquisition. It is important to take into account that UCS is an end-to-end solution. Integration with Cisco Nexus is a must.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options, but in the convergence market, UCS should be evaluated as a clear option to evaluate.

Training, training, training and planning, planning, planning!

The VM-FEX, hardware integration with VMware vSphere.

It's faster to provision virtual servers than physical. Also, it has very good orchestration with UCS Director 5.2.

The UCS Manager is written in Java and has many problems after the new Java releases. It should be rewritten in HTML5.

I've used it for one and a half years.

It was not a problem.

It is very stable.

No issues encountered.

4/5

4/5

IBM Blade Servers,was in place previously.

It was straightforward to do it. You need to have expert-level knowledge in LAN, SAN, and servers to be able to do it properly

I did by myself.

No, Cisco UCS was the stuff we wanted.

• Flexibility,
• Management
• VMware interoperability

It's helped us to develop a new platform for virtualization, with a small footprint, and improved our computing power efficiency.

It could be helpful to have a wizard to make the setup routine better, and a wizard to help with the managerial processes to avoid misconfiguration issues.

We've been using a Cisco 6296, 5100 Chassis, B-Series server B200M3, VIC1280 for two years.

We have had no issues with the deployment.

There have been no performance issues.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

They are very professional.

Our system used to be based on the usual rack servers, with Dell M1000 based blades.

The hardware setup was easy. The initial setup through the manager requires a deep understanding of the platform.

We implemented it with the assistance of an integrator who were a Cisco partner. I definitely recommended you get professional assistance to help with the initial run phase. It's critically important to provide formal learning to the internal team that will be in charge of the day-to-day operating activities.

I'd recommend that you create a "turn Key" solution pack, including both hardware and platform licensing, and guest licensing. You could also get this by implementing it through re-sellers.

We also looked into HP servers, but decided that Cisco was better in most areas. Combined with Nexus switches, it provides us with a versatile solution for a virtual platform including SAN fabric capability build in, networking flexibility and SDN, and is better to management.

You need to have at least a basic understanding of the product concept and architecture variations in order to better understand use cases and ROI estimation in order to get the initial sizing right, and create the right scaling plan.

We are using this solution to connect to a rack system.

The GUI makes is simple to use and deploy.

Managing could be improved. It's too hard.

The pricing could be less.

I have been working with Cisco UCS B Series for six years.

This solution is stable, we had not had any issues.

This solution is scalable. 

The scalability is very good.

Technical support is very good. We had two or three issues, but they were able to solve them.

The initials setup is straightforward.

It requires some preparation. It's not as easy as Microsoft, but for Cisco, it's still good.

Pricing with Cisco is very high.

The price is very inefficient.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The features of Cisco UCS that are of the most value to me is the ability to build Service Profiles for servers based on your needs. You can add HBAs and NICs to servers as needed, and you can remove them just as easily. 

Also, with UCS, updating firmware and drivers has been simplified and can be done throughout the system simply by associating new firmware policies to the hardware. You can also run different versions of firmware as needed to support legacy applications.

UCS has made it possible to replace and upgrade servers quickly and easily while keeping things up and running for the enterprise. 

Replacing the Fabric interconnects and IOMs can be done while the system is up and serving production data. You can almost effectively negate downtime from your organization as a result.

I would really like to see an integrated management interface for all the products for FlexPod, as well as a verification tool like Immersive that can give you feedback about your compatibility with FlexPod guidelines.

Get a qualified vendor to help you go through the process, and take some training to get familiar with how things work together.

The solution is primarily used for computation purposes. 

The hardware available for the solution is very good. It's quite reliable and robust.

The visualization is excellent.

The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward. 

The scalability is excellent. 

We found that the stability is extremely reliable. 

Technical support is very good in general.

The price of this product is too high. They should work to make it more affordable.

I've been dealing with the solution for about three years at this point. It's been a while. 

The stability and performance of this Cisco product are excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability potential of the product is very, very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

Technical support is pretty good. We find Cisco to be knowledgeable and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support we receive overall. They're great. All UCS products have great support.

We found the initial setup to be pretty easy. It's straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as too complex or difficult. A company should have no problems deploying it. 

We have seen an ROI and would recommend the solution based on those observations.

The solution is quite expensive. It's pretty high, especially when you compare it against the offerings of other vendors. They need to be more competitive in terms of pricing.

We're a Cisco partner.

We are dealing with the latest version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number.

I can recommend the solution wholeheartedly to other organizations. I would really recommend it due to the fact that it's a really stable technology. Also, it can produce a return on investment for organizations as well.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the product at an eight. We've largely been quite pleased with its capabilities.

For UCS B series, its integration with devices like FI, N5K. I also like UCSM where we can configure Service Profile and the way it combines LAN, SAN, and the server on the blade. I love it.

I am working with a Gold Partner company and we deploy this product to our customers, and so far we have deployed it in many clients and we have not received any complaints.

GUI had some trouble before with Java updates, but that is fixed now.

One to two years.

No.

No.

10/10.

We use Dell, HP, UCS, all of them, but personally I like this product more.

It very easy and straightforward.

Pricing and licensing depend upon the requirements of the clients, but the recommended ones are to go with some Ethernet and Fabric ports mix.

Yes, we give options to the customers and go for this upon their choice.

This is a complete solution with FI.