HPE BladeSystem Reviews

I especially value the higher consolidation ratio.

This server comes with up to 2TB of memory which allows us to run more virtual machine on single server. We can leverage it for a higher consolidation ratio.

It would be better if the boot time during POST would be reduced.

I have used it for eight years.

I did not encounter any stability issues. It’s a good product.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

I would give them a rating of 9/10.

We used to deploy IBM Blade Servers. The switch was due to company policy, although IBM products are also good.

The setup is quite easy once you configure the Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) server.

It depends on the order size of other services we select during the procurement phase.

We evaluated Cisco UCS.

It’s advisable to use FlexFabric Interconnect for a converged network.

The HP ProLiant line has proven to be a very durable and reliable product. This is the greatest thing that I love about HP servers. They just work and keep on working. We have HP ProLiant servers which are almost 10 years old and is still working until today.We bought HP ProLiant servers as they offered us the best value for money in our part of the country. HP also has great support countrywide, and we didn't have any problem that the local support could not handle. This for me is the number reason why selected HP ProLiant for our servers in our part of the country. We felt more at ease with HP ProLiant rather than with IBM System X, as HP has better support.

The only con I can think off with using HP ProLiant is the limited parts of the old servers. This is understandable though, as it is also not feasible for vendors to stock parts which might never be sold.There is also this thing about server management. Other vendors like Cisco has really taken leaps and bounds in overhauling server manageability and make it work. HP has had new products as of late, but I think they must have innovated sooner as they are now behind the competition in this regard.

I would definitely recommend HP ProLiant servers. They are very reliable and very easy to configure. Just make sure that you stock-up on parts which you think might not be available any more in the foreseeable future. From experience, stock on the hard disks especially if you are still using the older technology, and buy redundant power supplies as these are the ones that normally fail after years of continuous operations.

My company is working in media and we offer a solution for TV channels. We use HPE for classic IT usage but also for broadcast systems, to transport and deliver the signals to the TV channel. We use a BladeSystem for TV channel transcoding.

The benefit is the density and the capability for global harmonization on the hardware, because all the hardware chassis are the same. We can also purchase the same network cards too, chassis by chassis, so it gives us a global solution.

The density. It's good to have a sixteen-server chassis.

I'm not thinking about what kind of new services we could have in the HPE C7000 because I have made the decision to go to HPE Synergy or Dynamic.

More than five years.

The stability is good. We have used it for more than ten years now, and it has been a very good product.

The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis, so you have to add more chassis, and you can't have a domain fabric like HPE Synergy, for example. You would need to have a taskforce behind the chassis to make the network possible, between the chassis, rather than a solution which is fully integrated via a domain fabric network solution.

Behind a domain fabric, you can connect something like 20 chassis. With this technology, we will have a real scale-out possibility, rather than the C7000 chassis which does not scale out.

We have contract support with HPE.

It was not complex for us. We built our server installation.

I would recommend HPE BladeSystem.

I'm satisfied with HPE BladeSystem at the moment but we can imagine consuming Blade servers, metal-as-a-service. We have an entire environment refresh coming up at the moment. We need to make provisions for metal-as-a-service because we have a huge machine. We cannot re-authorize this machine, and we need to make the right provisioning for metal-as-a-service.

We're beginning to look at the Cisco UCS technology, with a domain fabric system. But at the moment we don't have an agreement with Cisco. My company is part of the Orange main group and we have an Orange agreement with HPE and Dell EMC. So we are looking at the HPE Synergy and the Dynamic systems.

Even if we are looking for HPE Synergy and Dynamic in the future, we're also looking for a hyperconverged solution like Nutanix or HPE Simplivity.

So in the future, we will have both technologies, hyperconverged and the classic chassis Blade technology. We have two different needs. We have needs for virtualization, so hyperconverged is enough at first, and Nutanix or HPE Synergy is okay. On the other hand, we need to continue to consume metal-as-a-service, so HPE Synergy or Dynamic as a work product. HPE C7000 is limited in terms of having a real metal-as-a-service. From my point of view, the best approach for metal-as-a-service is HPE Synergy or Dynamic.

The most criteria when selecting a vendor are reliability, and their capabilities for the future: the right research and development for the product to be able to come out with new features in the future. They should also have strong support, of course, and have the right functionality to be integrated into modern information systems.

I rate HPE BladeSystem at eight out of ten. It has strong reliability and, for a mid-range company, it's a very good product.

OA management: Easy to manage from one console.

• Management
• Diagnostic
• Monitoring installed servers becomes easier
• HW maintenance and management becomes easier 

• Management
• Monitoring

More than 10 years.

None at all.

None at all.

I would rate technical support at a nine out of 10.

Yes, HPE DL Servers. We switched to blade for scalability, optimization, and to improve our datacenter power, networking, space, etc.

It was straightforward.

Consult and check with the HPE pre-sales team before ordering and selecting the best products needed for your applications.

No.

Check your actual needs before ordering and starting with fewer number of servers and higher interconnect switches, and then having to add items according to your needs.

The longevity and modular factors allow for upgrading and continued usage. It also has a pretty solid design and management.

Getting more out of what you purchased. Like the virtualization of the product and especially the virtual connects allows for better efficiency in usage. There is also easy management and easy upgrades.

It is nearing the end of its development, so I think the question is a moot point. HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000.

We have been using this solution since the beginning of 2007.

Generally there are no problems with stability. However, updating firmware in the virtual connect in the older days caused issues. But they have been fixed for a while.

There were no scalability issues. When upgrading to higher speeds, the backplane could be problematic. For example, when going to 16Gb fibre and 40Gb LAN requires one to go from the G1 and G2 to the later G3. Upgrading to the new 32 and 128Gb SAN is not possible.

Technical support is good to excellent. It is a solid product with a lot of years behind it and a BIG install base.

in the old days, HPE had a horrifying type blade system. (I guess they were all horrible before this blade.) That was a long time ago. The C7000 set the bar for blade systems when it came out.

The setup was quite easy to get going, although the virtual connects were a bit more problematic in the beginning.

Add OneView and ILO advanced to the base product. Don’t adjust the price, but just include them.

You have to look at the newer options now, especially Synergy. Keep in mind that existing servers cannot be used in the new model since it’s a completely new type of product redesigned from the bottom up with new case and everything. If you are adding servers to an existing Blade System, go for that solution since it is cheaper and still allows you to utilize your assuages.

If you are looking for a new system and do not have one in place, see the new products like Synergy.

It's scalable and reliable. We're able to add as much as we can to it without worrying about it going down.

It's improved our operation and efficiency with it's great uptime. Since implementing it, we experience very little downtime.

I'd like to see HP move more towards software-defined solutions because we're looking towards software-defined networks.

It deploys perfectly.

We haven't had any technical issues, so it's very stable.

We only need to add more blades, which makes it as scalable as we can need or afford.

They have the ultimate knowledge of their products.

We were using Dell, and we switched because they couldn't provide us with service turnaround time for our environment that was sufficient for us.

If you're looking for a solution that has near 100% uptime, these blades provide that.

We got the C7000s because of connectivity and the rack space we save. You don't need one hundred cables. We're also able to have mobility for bring-your-own-device enabled by Microsoft.

It's a space saver and easier to manage, as we've gone from hundreds of cables to 13 racks. Previously, there were so many wires with 180 servers that we could trip up or fall over them.

The technical support itself is good, but you pay a lot of money for active services.

We've had no problems with deployment.

It's been stable for us.

It's just about connecting more, so it's scalable in that way.

We have a service contract, but we don't need it as we're small enough that we can deal with our own issues.

We're also using HP Brocade SAN switches.

It's good and functional and there's a firewall on each.

My advice would be to go for it, but never mix vendors. We got HP servers and then added Dell servers and had to deal with double management of all the servers.