FlexPod XCS Reviews

The guaranteed compatibility is our most valuable feature.

I would say we’ve seen a speed increase – faster backup times as a result of using the Cisco UCS. We can now do HP failover better, and we can also have bigger clusters.

I would say that since I haven’t seen SnapManager, I don’t know yet.

The integration with VMware could be a bit smoother.

It’s been rock solid so far. We’ve been using FlexPod for almost a year.

We started out with one chassis and have now increased because the first one worked out so well. Even though we bought a brand new NetApp head, we were able to use our old disc shelves, which helped us.

It’s been really good so far – we haven’t had any calls to say this or that isn't working since our installation. We have had calls to grow things and change things, but that’s been pretty easy.

It was pretty straightforward – we got it done in like a week.

If you’re looking for a mixture of companies and you’ve played the point-the-finger blame-game – it removes all that. FlexPod helps to minimize that kind of blame-the-other-vendors. When you have an issue, it gets resolved faster.

Standardization, so there's no question about how something is or how something should be set up.

Variety is the spice of life, but in what we do, variety kills you. We were an HP shop and we used different SAN vendors, but since going with Flexpod, we only deal with NetApp and Cisco.

Drives out variation. It’s easy to have someone at NetApp and Cisco to come in the door and know what they’re doing.

There’s a lot of talk about security, but very little action. I’d like to see something from NetApp/Cisco that’s beyond simple encryption so that data is not useable or visible when breach occurs.

No issues other than human error.

Very scalable, and we’ve been very pleased. We had a hard time planning for the future because of projects that we get. But, it scales very well and we can plan with it, impressively so. We often do things in emergency situations, which means adding storage or additional shelves, and we can do that with FlexPod.

It's very, very good.

Very smooth and quick setup. We got it and knew exactly what to do with it. So complex, but we knew what to do, and still, very smooth.

We’ve looked at everything and did footwork, so just go with Flexpod to save yourself time and effort.

• It's simple as the software is in the fabric instead of having to install the software
• Management is easy through the UI
• You can see all the data
• Integrated networking

It’s two vendors who have a good track records, so it’s a safe bet, and it’s innovative in that it's planned and being planned. It’s reliable, but has an enterprise cost; however, from an IT perspective it’s worth it.

Storage and compute could be better managed. Right now, there are two separate consoles for NetApp and Cisco components. There's no unified management available, and an add-on for that should be a standard option. Also, the cost.

Very stable as an enterprise-level product.

The fabric interconnecters with our older version is fine.

Haven’t had to use tech support because it hasn’t given us trouble.

Not around for initial setup, it would have been complex four years ago, but now it's straightforward

It’s a good product, and I wouldn’t say not to go with it. If you are heavily invested with another vendor, for example HP, don’t change.

• The simplicity
• It's really scalable
• The integration with Cisco and NetApp is perfect

Since the customer had Cisco, he was really into Cisco, all the gear was Cisco, the network, the security, etc. It was easier to show UCS and Nexus and then to attach a NetApp storage. I can say that since we have a lot of Cisco clients, Flexpod is really valuable, because they are used to Cisco and it's easier to position NetApp.

I know about NetApp, not Cisco. So I don't know what's going on in the next release. But for NetApp, I expect with 9.3 coming out, a lot of features, more improvement of the data usage.

The memory, that you can enable flash to even increase your performance. So this will SCM.

Stability is really nice. The support of both NetApp and Cisco, the unified support, is really good.

The scalability is really good because it's not a silo. You can expand both storage-wise or network-wise or even servers, and if we pick another convergent infrastructure, it's difficult or they are locked. So you can scale either way, either vertically or horizontally.

When we are positioning against a cheaper solution it's really difficult to sell NetApp to our small customers, so it's really difficult to position. The customer has to see a lot of value. Once we have medium and bigger customers, it's really easy to position and it's perfect.

• It's ready to use, just plug and play
• It's easy to manage
• Single administration console

One of the benefits of the solution is management. We do not need to contact multiple vendor OEMs for any VMware issues, NetApp issues, or Cisco UCS issues. We can conduct it all with a single point of reference.

One feature we would like to see is SSD with the Cisco UCS Mini already available.

Also, integration with the other OEMs. Right now it is their intent that we could integrate with the EMC and the Hitachi, but still there are a few more OEMs out there, customs.

About three years.

No, it's good. We have many more than 50 customers that are using a solution with this platform.

It's scalable up to whatever you need. We can integrate it up to 160 servers.

It's good. We can always get to the right person for help.

We have been involved in the initial setup many times for many customers, from day one.

The most valuable feature is the reference architecture, which helps to standardize our computer stack.

It has helped us standardize what we get in terms of purchasing hardware, around VMware and Cisco, and the computing system.

I think that a unified dashboard would be beneficial across all three of the components to show you the status of all three components.

It’s extremely stable. Rock solid in our experience.

It has been very scalable – our guys scale it across six sites right now.

Good, the relationship between the three companies has been very good. It is not a case where one vendor dumps you off on the other; all companies involved have good information about the other companies involved in the product.

For our setup and deployment we put together a solution using all three components, and then they came out with the reference architecture so we standardized the system.

Peer reviews are very important because you want to know what experiences other people are having.

• Management of solution
• Integration between technologies
• Single support for all technologies involved

It's easy to deploy and easy to scale when you need. It’s a proven architecture that works with tools for virtualization or private cloud environment. When you need to scale you just buy another rack or hardware to put in data center and can manage centrally. You don’t need to do much configuration to get it working.

The price, but nothing from a technical perspective.

It's got very good stability. Its UCS platform is outstanding because it combines with Cisco network with good hardware.

You just add racks as needed.

I haven't had to use it.

They need to make the platform a little cheaper in Brazil.

Make sure you have infrastructure, as it needs to have a good datacenter infrastructure otherwise you won’t use 100% of solution.

• Reference architecture is very useful so we know how to plug it in
• We can scale each component differently and separately
• Each component is best of breed, and better than the competition

Originally, we already had many components, and we never combined it as reference architecture before. It was easy for the company to learn. Also, the different components can be scaled differently. We can put it in different sizes and make each component a different size easily.

Simplification of configurations. Easy instructions/configurability for adding components and expansion. It loses points because it could get simpler.

Excellent stability. We were already pretty stable with separate components, but now we’re more stable.

Fantastic scalability. You can scale each component separately, which is very useful.

Good tech support. One throat-to-choke option is nice, but we also have alternate sources of information.

Pretty straightforward. We used professional services for the first configuration, and for expansions we did it ourselves with no problems.

Make sure you have expertise in Cisco and NetApp components so you can operationally ace it over, because even though it’s a reference architecture, you have to know about each component. Have in-house expertise, otherwise, it’s the best of the products out there.