HPE BladeSystem Reviews

HPE BladeSystem is used to consolidate the server's footprint.

The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management.

HPE BladeSystem can improve proactive monitoring.

I have been using HPE BladeSystem for approximately 15 years.

HPE BladeSystem is very reliable, it is 100 percent stable.

As our business grows the HPE BladeSystem is scalable.

We have approximately 400 people using the solution in my organization. We plan to increase the usage in the future.

I have contacted HPE several times the HPE BladeSystem, and I was satisfied with the speed and their response.

I have previously used IBM and I was not happy with the solution. However, they no longer have the solution, they sold their portfolio to Lenovo.

The initial setup of the HPE BladeSystem was easy. The time it took for the deployment was approximately two days.

We used support from the vendor for the deployment.

I have seen a return on investment from using the HPE BladeSystem.

When you purchase HPE BladeSystem you have to pay for the support service. The first three years are covered under the warranty, and for any further support, you have to pay annually. When comparing the cost of HPE BladeSystem to other vendors, the fees are less expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate HPE BladeSystem an eight out of ten.

When it comes to the BladeSystem, what we love about it most is being able to actually manage it using OneView. It's one feature that allows us to fully manage all of our infrastructure using just one application.

We were able to deploy a lot of different operating systems such as VMware and Red Hat Linux, Oracle, Oracle Solaris; also Microsoft's Windows server. All of these are fully supported within the HPE BladeSystem. It allows us to be able to implement and deploy different operating system using one HPE BladeSystem.

I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances.

It's very, very, stable. We've got over 40 HPE BladeSystems and so far we've had very, very few hardware problems. Whenever we have a hardware problem, HPE call us right away about our problem, and somebody works on that problem within four hours of generating a call for any type of hardware or software problem.

You cannot really scale a BladeSystem. If I were using it in conjunction with VMware, then we are able to upgrade or get a higher CPU or memory on a virtual machine or move a virtual machine in a different blade that has a higher CPU and memory. If it comes to that, yes, using other software, scalability is very good.

Technical support is very good. I've opened a lot of calls over the web or by phone with HPE, and I would say that 99% of the time, they respond to the ticket within an hour of opening an issue.

There is no complication at all when setting it up, either setting it up as an experienced user like myself or having HPE set it up for you using their services. No problem at all.

We were based on different hardware vendors. We selected HPE due to the cost of the hardware; also for the scalability of the materials, and the different models that could be inserted or interchanged in a chassis; also the easiness of the deployment. That's how we selected HPE BladeSystem. We also considered Dell, Cisco, IBM, and Oracle.

It's because we've been using it for so many years now. It's been very reliable for us. I would say consult your hardware vendor and discuss with them your needs. Sit down with them. Elaborate what services do you need and decide together. That's how I would say it.

We like the wire once approach. We've had to do very little maintenance on the backend connectivity components. We really have been able to basically leave our fiber and Ethernet connections alone. I think in our ten years on two BladeSystem enclosures, we've done one infield upgrade, to raise our capacity limits on Ethernet and fiber channel. But really, the same enclosures have been doing fantastic for that entire time.

We had a lot of work to do from a management perspective as an administrator to ensure that we had the correct firmware and driver levels, and things like that, between servers. HPE fixed that when they introduced the service pack for ProLiant. OneView has expanded the idea of server profiles and added some additional management ease - including the ability to define firmware levels for blades - the way that a Cisco UCS blade does.

We've been a BladeSystem customer for over 10 years.

The ecosystem of software the comes with HPE blade has been lacking. HPE's Rapid Deployment Pack (was rebranded Altiris when I used it) is clunky solution for imaging blades and it may have been replaced. Sometimes the NPIV makes it difficult to find WWN in the fibre channel SAN when bringing a new blade online.

Early on, I would say that it wasn't stable. Today, however they test all of the firmware and drivers together now, so when we do a deployment or upgrade for firmware, that service pack has been integration tested across all of the different generations and hardware components, so we've gotten a lot more stability out of the solution since they made that change, and that's something I will say across multiple different solutions. Sometimes if they identify a problem like that as a partner, they tend to try to correct it. It may take them some time to get it corrected, but we went through the same sort of thing with StoreOnce ... Early on we had some issues with the software releases and there were some inefficiencies that in a couple generations they had it worked out and they listened to customer feedback. They try to integrate that into their solutions. That's one of the things that keeps us as an HPE customer, because we do feel that communication and feedback gets heard.

Multiple enclosures at scale can introduce challenges. That's one of the downsides of a ten year old technology. HPE is working on new solutions to really hit scale issues that they have encountered with BladeSystem, but it works fine for us. We are a small to medium sized enterprise, so we've not encountered any major issues with scalability where we are at, but we are running one enclosure per sight, so we're not really trying to do scale things.

7/10 - it can be hit or miss. We get better luck with our premium support levels. We have a named TAM for some of our systems, that works out well. Escalation managers are always good. There is good technical talent, it's just sometimes hidden by first level support. That can be difficult and frustrating at times, but over ten years working with them, I would say today it's probably a little better than when I first started. Actually, I would say it's probably improved a good bit since I first started working with them, but it's still got some room to go.

BladeSystem setup was one of my first projects when I joined the company, there was a learning curve to it. It really actually was fairly straightforward except we were trying to do everything boot from SAN, and that added some complexity and learning curve. The actual hardware solution - it was fairly straightforward and made a lot of sense. Blades were brand new back then too, so it was a foreign concept, but it wasn't terrible. I would say maybe a a six out of ten or something initially, but if I had to do it now, it's probably a lot easier.

It really gets the job done well. It's dense compute. We replaced an entire rack of equipment with ten use, twelve use, I can't remember how many use it is, but with a single BladeSystem. It has been a long-sustaining enclosure. We have field upgraded the interconnects twice to add new capabilities as technology changed and those were service affecting but not very difficult. I have worked with Cisco UCS Manager and both have similar concepts. HPE Synergy is also due to launch soon, and althought HPE has a commitment to BladeSystem for the next few years, Synergy is really their next generation of blade technology.

It really gets the job done. The management is easy, it's been easy from an upgrade perspective and maintenance. So, it works really well for us.

The density of servers and their racks, just being able to fit as much as we can in as small space as we can. This is important because our data center space is at a premium.

We have a large DSX infrastructure for VMWare and having it uniform and having it compact is a good thing for us. As we're moving forward towards using OneView I think that'll save us some FT there as well. The older tools weren't as easy to use. I went to a session on OneView and it looked a little bit more like something we were going to be able to take advantage of and save a lot of time and configuration.

I think some of the stuff may be fixed but one of the issues we have is firmware on virtual connects. There's a little bit of overlap on the timing that causes, you know, if you're not careful it can cause a short outage for the Blade System. I think that may be fixed with OneView management.

We're working on implemented OneView. We're just barely getting started. I think OneView is addressing a lot of the issues that we have, we haven't been able to get fully into it yet due to limited resources.

It's very stable.

So really the main thing we've had was just the firmware with virtual connects can be a little touchy. There's another tool, I can't even remember what it's called, you can do a command line and avoid the issue, talking to our hospitalier but we haven't had a chance so what we've kind of done is made a whole chassis of failure domain which is kind of a waste of resources on occasion to avoid that.

Well to be honest, I haven't ever used another BladeSystem from another vendor. Our organization has an HPE Direct as far as technology goes, so I haven't really been involved in considering other platforms so.

I know they looked at Cisco a little bit but I haven't myself.

We use HPE BladeSystem for our server needs. Additionally, we use other software solutions and professional models to meet the requirements of our clients.

The integration and price of HPE BladeSystem could be improved.

I have been using HPE BladeSystem for seven years.

HPE BladeSystem is stable.

The solution is scalable, offering flexibility and expansion options to meet changing business needs.

We used Microsoft SQL Server.

There are enhancements to the HPE BladeSystem. These enhancements are crucial for the installation and ownership of the product. They are similar and alleviate concerns regarding technical aspects and approaches. Additionally, they will contribute to improvements in broadband performance. 

The solution is expensive.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor.

I have been using HPE BladeSystem for approximately 20 to 25 years.

I have found the HPE BladeSystem can be stable most of the time. 

I can see the BladeSystem is having some hardware failure issues. I can see this happening frequently in one of the customers. If they can increase all the bandwidth on the internal network backbone, they should increase it to 100 GPPS. Additionally, The HPE BladeSystem has internal storage, but we cannot populate it as shared storage across the load. If we can provide the local storage as shared storage across the load, that would help the customers.

HPE BladeSystem is a scalable solution. It is a composable infrastructure which we can manage our external services. This is the one factor which I can see the server is much more suitable for the OneView console.

HPE BladeSystem provides excellent technical support from their team.

The initial setup of the HPE BladeSystem is complex with the OneView console.  You can see a lot of tabs and a lot of settings. The configuration could be more user-friendly in OneView, which will be helpful for the customer to manage all the testing.

HPE BladeSystem does not require a lot of maintenance, because all the components are specific and the costs are less.

The licenses for HPE BladeSystem are perpetual.

My advice is if a customer is looking for a less-density server, HPE BladeSystem is a highly suitable solution. If you install or if you require the 12 servers in the rack, it will take the 12 to 15 space in the rack. Additionally, we have to think about the cabling.

I rate HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our SQL Server VMware virtualization. We put this on our on SQL Servers and VMware virtualization systems on this product. 

The solution uses a smaller space in our data centers. It uses less feeder and network cable, which reduces costs. Troubleshooting is also easier than other options.

The solution saves us space and resources (like cables).

It's very easy to troubleshoot if we have issues.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The response time in terms of getting technical support assistance could be improved.

It's a bit expensive. They should work on bringing down the pricing if they can.

We have one older model, we've used for maybe six or seven years. We also have a new one, which is Synergy, we've used for two years.

The solution is stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It's free of quirks and it doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability is good. If a company needs to expand it out, they should be able to do so.

Our company has over 5,000 users on this solution.

We will continue to use the solution into the future.

The technical support is okay, I'd rate it seven out of ten overall. Their response times could be faster.

We didn't switch from a different solution. We had older models which we updated. We've always used HPE.

The initial implementation is not complex. It's a pretty straightforward process.

We deployed the solution over 100 servers, and it didn't take too long to deploy.

We have about ten to 20 people managing the solution.

We had a vendor assist us with the implementation.

I don't know the exact cost of licensing, however, it's my understanding that the solution is relatively expensive.

We're simply a customer. We don't have a business relationship with HPE.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using or if it's the latest.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at an eight. If the pricing was better and they offered better support, I would rate the solution higher.

I'm very happy with the product in general.  

I'm an engineer in different environments, I have seen HPE frequently; HPE support packs, et cetera. In terms of the hardware versions update, it's giving me very good support compared to other products. 

It is a stable product.

The scalability has been good.

Technical support is helpful.

I'd like to see an all-in-one packet in the future. Some solutions don't come with storage.

During deployment, they're providing different places for the .EXE files and whatever it is downloading. It would sometimes mess up. This could be adjusted so that it's easier to deploy without issue.

I've used the solution for the past 15 years. It's been well over a decade now. I've used it for quite a while. 

We are satisfied with the stability. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. It is a bit limited, however.

The support has been very good and we are extremely satisfied with them. 

Aside from some issues around .EXE files not downloading properly, the initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

In terms of deployment times, each blade hardly takes one or two hours to set up. It might take one or two days in total based on the already gathered requirements and whatever the company made already.

You only need about two people to deploy and maintain the solution. Once it's deployed completely, likely you only need one person to maintain everything. 

Vendors will come and they configure mostly hardware side. The remaining part, networking, et cetera, we configure, and everything is fine. Our clients mostly deployed it in-house. We come in to configure the WLANs and remaining stuff.

The licensing is paid on a yearly basis. 

I have recommended my clients to HPE. Rather than other companies, HPE would give good support, and I'm very happy with that. It is a good, high-end product.

I'm not completely an end-user. I'm like an administrator, in the server administration department.

The solution is more suited to the cloud in terms of deployment options. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.