Cisco UCS Manager Reviews

We use it to get the Cisco UCS Manager to configure all the devices, resources, and the possibility to interact with the CPU's memory and the profiles to manage. Most of the environments that we work with are related to VMware.

We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage. For example, we had a problem with a damaged motherboard in a bank, so we had to replace that. Cisco sent the RMA, and we switched the motherboard, the CPUs and the memory. When we did that, we inserted the blade server with a new motherboard and the validation of all the new characteristics of the motherboard and the mezzanine port was recognized easily through the Cisco UCS Manager. We have been told that fixing this issue would not have been easy with other brands as it was with the Cisco UCS Manager.

Getting a CLI report on routers, switches, or any other CLI configuration device is difficult. We do a show run or show start-up, and we get the whole configuration, but we do not have that in the GUI environment in the Cisco UCS Manager. Having a command to export the show run or show start-up will be nice.

We have been using this solution for four years, and we have been using the old version. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution, and we don't have any problems. If any public interconnects fail, we have high availability. We do not consider the Fabric Interconnect with the M6 version of the servers, and we need to get to inter-site service. It could be on-premises and also on cloud.

It is a scalable solution. We need some people for deployment, configuration, maintenance and support. They deal with the Cisco UCS Manager environment, so we don't get involved in VMware, visualization, or Hypervisor support. Specifically for hardware maintenance, we have at least ten technicians.

The technical support is very good, and I rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy.

I am not sure if we have received a return on investment.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Regarding advice, It has easier deployment. You have support, a wide range of support engineers at Cisco that can help with either the Cisco UCS Manager isolated deployment, the HyperFlex or the ACI deployment.

Our use case, from our point of view, is that we installed this product in data centers for our customers. I work with six customers currently, and I have to set up the data centers for each of them. For one of them, we run the Cisco UCS Manager. So I have hands-on experience with the setup from end-to-end.  

Usually, we are called by clients specifically about product suggestions. I often personally recommend Cisco UCS because of the high availability. The setup time is quick compared to other products in this category. When we are contracted we have to set up the network, the storage, and other parts of the environment. That means a network and storage link for each and every chassis. But here, because of the configuration of Cisco UCS, we need just one link for all the chassis. This helps us make for quicker delivery time.  

We also monitor the systems, we install and keep spare blades for each and every chassis. Just one or two blades are sufficient for the entire environment. That way, we can easily manage system maintenance. Also, the failover and the profiling system is good with the Cisco product. You can just move the profile to the new blade so that it will start working with the new configuration. This makes it easy during maintenance.  

The ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product.  

So far the only challenge we face with Cisco UCS is during firmware upgrades. If it happens that there is a failover, and we need to change something in the system, this is where we can run into problems. We can't upgrade the firmware for each component one-at-a-time. It is not a method that will work in a practical way in a larger or global network.  

Nowadays it is some sort of a status symbol or a business necessity for a customer to be in various geographical locations. Because the client can have locations in Australia and the U.S. — in different regions of the world — that tends to make the maintenance of the firmware more difficult. The various business locations offer challenges in that way.  

Usually, when we procure the blades, everything has the same firmware level. This makes sense and is fine if installing in a singular location and for new installations. Everything will match. If it is a new installation and the hardware was not procured at the same time, the firmware for all the components can easily be upgraded because it is still before the implementation.  

But later — say after one year — a customer needs to expand. If we are procuring a new blade, the new blade will come with the new firmware. When the new blade is mounted into the chassis, the old alignment will not understand the new blade because it has new firmware.  

In that case, you need to downgrade the firmware for the new blade or upgrade the firmware for the entire environment. During the firmware upgrades, we would definitely need to take downtime in some cases and the downtime would take too long. We face that challenge all the time in having to choose which path to take during the upgrade. But because of the obvious issues with upgrading the entire environment, it often looks like a better solution to just downgrade the one new blade. We need the option to downgrade or choose the firmware for the component because we cannot upgrade the entire environment. In many cases, we cannot take the downtime for the entire environment because of what it means to the network and the business.  

We should have chances to work with firmware levels in one or two firmware versions and it should be easier to do. Everyone would be comfortable with that. Otherwise, in some cases, there is no point in providing a new blade. Customers will hopefully grow and need new blades. We don't want any extra risk with downtime.  

So Cisco should make an improvement in the firmware upgrade process. No one is providing this kind of solution. But if Cisco would improve that firmware issue, that would be great.  

A new feature that I would suggest is to have the possibility of different types of connections. Within the full-width blade, there are two types of blade: full-width and half-width blade. In the full-width blade, when one link fails, the other link will take care of the entire load. The half-width blade doesn't have that kind of input. It has only one link. If one link goes down, the entire blade goes down. So Cisco should include the feature like that in the half-width blade so it functions more like the full-width blade and is not prone to failure.  

I have used UCS Manager for almost six years.  

The help that we get from Cisco support is really good, but there can be nuances with the incompatibilities in existing structures that cause complexity. These can take some time to resolve. But the resource is dependable.  

The initial setup is complex. I will have to spend a lot of time planning the actual implementation. When we execute the plan it will take about two months. The recommendations of the product to the client, the acceptance and the procurement could take as much as four months. But once they deliver the product, we will take a maximum of six to seven weeks to finish the implementation. This is the outlook for the plan but the implementation does not always work so smoothly.    

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. I use the UCS Manager and I think it is a good solution.  

We primarily use the solution for software computing within our organization.

The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects.

The automation within the solution needs to be simplified. 

In the next release, the solution should have a central view center or offer administration capabilities for different environments.

I've been using the solution for four years.

The solution is quite stable. We've never witnessed any bug or glitches. We also haven't experienced any crashes that would lead us to believe the stability is in question. It's very good.

The scalability of the solution is okay. You do get some scalability, but it's not fully scalable per se.

We've reached out to technical support in the past. The support they've provided has been great. We're satisfied with the level of service that they've given us.

The initial setup was complex. It was not straightforward. There's just too much effort to set up a simple environment.

The environment was quite large and the implementation process required a number of people.

Currently, we have six people who handle ongoing maintenance on the solution.

We used a consultant that was able to assist us with the implementation.

In terms of advice of how other users can implement the solution, I'd caution that it depends on what they like to use. If you need to have server usage, for example, for Oracle, for Microsoft Hyper V, VMware, or different solutions, then it's not the best.

For us, the complexity was too high especially when it comes to expanding it for other purposes.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Unification of storage as well as networking and compute and defining them with software (SDDC) are valuable features.

The best product in the market for Cloud business -- CAPEX and OPEX -- will be reduced.

Complete integration of the network, and the Nexus layer management and configurations could be improved.

We've used it for over five years.

Initial configuration of FlexPod due to the knowledge limitation.

We faced issue with Nexus vem licensing issue which makes our complete DC went isolated in connect

Scalability wise it was very nice, it would be good if the maximum limitation of chassis for the FlexPod is changed from 32 to 64 – which allows more scalability for the business

It's very good.

It's very good.

No previous solution used.

It was complex due to a limitation in our knowledge.

Through a vendor who had good expertise.

It has a good ROI comparatively to all other products/solutions.

IBM infrastructure with a Microsoft solution.

I strongly recommend that you go with a Cisco UCS solution for a cloud business.

We mainly use this solution to manage the UCS C and B blades.

The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I also like the dashboard, as it is quite user-friendly.

We haven't had any stability issues so far.

We have about 20 users and I believe this program is scalable.

The technical support is good and the team was very helpful.

I installed and deployed the program myself and it was really straightforward.

I am not sure what the price is, but you buy the hardware and then you get Cisco UCS Manager for free. 

I would definitely recommend this product to others and my rating for it would be nine out of ten. The pricing can always be better, so I would like to see that being improved. 

The solution is primarily used to manage user infrastructure.

It's difficult to pinpoint the exact features which are the most valuable to our organization.

The interface and the way it is constructed is very complex. They should work to simplify it. It's quite difficult for somebody who doesn't know the product very well. Users should be able to get proficient with it faster. There's definitely room for improvement there.

I've been using the solution for about six or seven years.

The solution offers quite good stability. We haven't had a problem at all with it. It's quite good.

We don't have too much equipment, so we haven't tried to scale it too much ourselves. However, the solution is actually quite scalable if a company needs to.

We have about six people using the solution in our company.

I'm not a system administrator, so I don't know if we plan to increase the usage. I personally don't intend to.

Technical support has been good so far. We haven't had any issues with them. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide our company.

We previously used different products. We had an IBM blade server but integrated the management, so it was a very different scenario to what we have now. The previous solution no longer exists, so we had no choice but to switch solutions and we chose Cisco.

The initial installation itself is not very complicated. However, the configuration of the solution can be quite complex.

Deployment times vary. It can be anywhere from a few hours to several weeks. It depends on the company and what needs to happen with the configuration. In our case, it took about a week to deploy it.

Currently, we're mostly paying for maintenance. As for the cost of the solution itself, I'm not sure what it is.

We were evaluating both Cisco and HP and eventually ended up choosing Cisco.

We're not partners with Cisco. I'm a user of the solution and also a consultant.

We're currently using the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure of the exact version number, but it was updated recently.

I don't have specific advice to others considering implementing the product. I'd just say that it's important that they know the product before implementing it.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. You can do pretty much anything you need to on the product, but it's quite complex. If they were able to simplify both the configuration and the user interface, I'd probably give them full marks.

It's a great tool for configuring all the features required for servers like storage, compute, and network. 

The best thing about UCSM and the UCS B-Series servers is its centralization, which means from one location we can configure storage, network and compute for all the servers that will be using it. It's very easy to add more servers with a very less effort.

So far for me, it's great and is a perfect solution. But the GUI needs some work.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

I am using Cisco UCS Manager for managing our entire ecosystem for Cisco products.

I can quickly manage the provisioned servers.

Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is really stable.

Their technical support is pretty good.

Its initial setup is straightforward.

It provides a return on investment.

I would rate Cisco UCS Manager a nine out of ten. It is a very useful product.