HPE BladeSystem Reviews

I think the c7000 platinum enclosure is really a great value for the money, especially for centralized data center management. It provides us with an advanced server management system that makes things work faster for our NOC and server administrator.

Firmware updates for system components are also valuable.

I would like to see improvement regarding scalability and deployment in the area of support. I simply mean seeing other fantastic features like built-in humidity or temperature sensors (especially for the market outside Europe and US). With technical support, I'm wondering if there could be some sort of seminar or webinar organised for users and prospective clients that may want to take a bake off on HPE BladeSystem.

The HPE BladeSystem is easy to manage. It is a fantastic product that datacenter managers, cloud services providers, and server room operators should embrace because it has all you could ever think of.

The most valuable features are its stability, reliability, ease of management, and high performance. In fact, the reason we buy HP products is because of their stability. The are very, very dependable in that regard.

The ease of management allows us to see issues related to server problems and the functioning of VMware products on those servers.

Scaling comes at a high cost, and it can be complex to set up. I'd also like to see how HP Synergy can improve the performance of BladeSystem.

We switched from the DLs to the BLs about 10 years ago.

Deploying it is not a problem.

It's highly stable and we have no issues.

It's scalable, but expensive because you have to buy additional blades.

The setup is easy or complex depending on what you want to do.

It's the best product for the time being so there's no reason not to buy it.

HP is very aware of and adaptable to our market. They've been able to provide the best technology to fit our market.

HP is a good partner, as they really try to understand and build trust with our market.

We can better maintain physical servers and takes up only half the cabinet space. We have from 8-16 physical servers in one chassis, so it's better for maintenance in case of hardware failure on one of these BladeSystems. We get higher density and better hardware maintenance.

More physical resources can be added to our pool with better maintenance.

I would like to see a better UI for configuring the VDX switches.

We are very satisfied with the stability.

For scalability, it is better to work withHPE Apollo servers, which is not what we are using. I think HPE provides all the products that work better and quicker.

Technical support is very good.

We were using older generation HP BladeSystems. We switched to the new version, because we needed more capacity. We were satisfied already with the existing BladeSystem, so we wanted to continue using it and went with the latest generation available.

Initial setup is straightforward for the physical servers, but took a bit more time to configure the virtual connect switches inside the chassis.

The price is affordable for what we want in new physical resources.

We looked at Dell and Quanta. HPE has very good technical support and that makes a difference; at least compared with Quanta for instance.

List what you need regarding new capacities of:

• RAM memory
• CPU power
• Your budget
• High availability limitation
• Support

We want a vendor to provide support for any hardware failure. They need to be able to respond quickly and so we can recover from a hardware failure and put it back into production.

As it's modular (a small server) and has redundant hardware such as power, a SAN switch, and an interconnector, we do not need to worry when there is a failure.

Alongside HP 3PAR and VMware hypervisor, it is easy to manage the server.

It needs to have backward compatibile firmware. Also, the enclosure for Generation 9 canot be paired with Generation 1 or 6 so it takes more effort to perform the migration.

We have used this product since Generation 1 in 2009. Currently, we have Generation 1, Generation 6, and Generation 7. We are currently using a Generation 9 for a refresh and to replace our Generation 1 and 6 (still in progress).

There were no issues with the deployment.

We have had no issues with the stability.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

It's fast and they respond well.

We chose it because we are already familiar with HP products.

The setup went smoothly.

A team from HPE assisted me.

I can remotely manage and monitor it easily.

The mail exchange server runs smoothly on the Blade Server.

With the management software, sometimes we can't run a new Java version or Active X. We have to use an old OS such as Windows XP to get through this. Some features of the Blade still requires you to use a CLI to configure.

I've been using it for two years.

There were no issues with the deployment. I can use a laptop and configure the Blade from my office room so I don’t have to go to the server room.

We've experienced no issues with performance.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

It's good.

It was straightforward.

It was implemented through a vendor.

It's expensive and the price should be reduced.

We also use Cisco UCS and IBM Flex servers.

You should get it through a vendor.

Customer installations for 10 years.

• Virtual Connect
• FlexFabric

Simple and easy installation.

Networking.

We have been installing it for customers for 10 years.

No issues.

Some bugs, which were solved by a firmware update.

No issues.

Good.

No.

It is straightforward. We followed the procedures.

We are the vendor team.

Excellent.

My use cases are for enterprise software such as banking, core banking, reporting software, and databases.

For me, the most valuable features are integration and simple defining.

BladeSystem is an old-fashioned server and not very well developed for new features and new areas of data centers, which is not very good for enterprise companies. In the next release, I would like to see an improvement in the UI.

This is a stable solution.

BladeSystem is scalable, but I think it needs to have a little more scalability of input in the future.

The initial setup was intermediate - not very easy but not too hard.

The technical support is good - I've had no problems with them.

I would give this solution a rating of seven out of ten.