HPE BladeSystem Reviews

* High Performance

* High Reliability

* "Insight Management" of the hardware

* Compatibility with all of the major Network Operating systems

It has provided us with a platform on which we have been able to create innovative solutions for our customers at very reasonable prices.

It would be nice if they were a little lighter in weight.

I have used Proliant series servers since they were first introduced.

On rare occasions, I have experienced hardware failures out of the box, but HP, and Compaq before that, were quick to resolve the problem and get the hardware up and running the next business day.

On very rare occasions, instability was experienced due to driver incompatibilities or firmware maladies. HP provided updates or workarounds to get the system stable fairly quickly.

I've never experienced an issue with hardware scalability.

Customer service is outstanding.

Over the years, technical support has gone from outstanding to "needs improvement", and back to "reasonably good". Typically, I've had to push the front line support team to escalate the issue to the back line, and the issue from there was quickly resolved. For hardware failures, it's been necessary from time to time to convince the front line that all of the diagnostic steps needed to isolate and identify the failed component have already been performed, and that what is needed is to get the replacement part. That process has also improved.

The initial setup has been straightforward in that HP has provided "Smart Start" kits to assist in getting their systems up and running very quickly. These kits typically prepare the systems for NOS installation and provide the necessary drivers to successfully discover all of the hardware components installed.

I am a Value Added Reseller, working with the end-user to acquire and build the solutions.

I have evaluated Dell and IBM products as part of an overall review of possible solutions for the customer.

If you need assistance in deploying Proliant servers, please feel free to contact me.

We have our ERP system, which is SAP, running on the blade servers. Additionally, we have business applications like intelligent tools and network operations tools running on the BladeSystem, all running on the VMware platform.

We never faced downtime due to hardware failure. The BladeSystem provided stable performance and we were satisfied with the contract from HPE, which renewed every year.

We were pleased with the stability of the system as there were no downtimes for the last ten years due to hardware failures. The contract review and service were satisfactory. The BladeSystem supports our ERP system and business applications, operating smoothly on VMware. The continuous operations without interruptions represent a valuable feature.

The support from HPE has not been satisfactory in the last two to three years. Follow-ups were inadequate, and proposals for system upgrades were delayed. The organization is seeking a third-party company for an extended service overview since support from HPE will not be available after this year.

We have been working with the BladeSystem for over ten years.

We have never faced a downtime due to hardware failure, and the system has been very stable for ten years.

We did not scale our BladeSystem. Instead, when we needed more workloads, we opted to use cloud solutions such as AWS and did not upgrade the on-premise BladeSystem.

The technical support from HPE was not effective in the last two to three years. They were slow in responses, and there was a lack of correct follow-up on issues. The level of service has declined compared to previous years.

Neutral

Before HPE BladeSystem, we used rack servers from HPE. The move to BladeSystem in 2013 was aimed at adopting hypervisor solutions.

The setup process was straightforward and simple, involving configuring the system with our existing network and installing VMware. It took around one to two weeks to integrate with our infrastructure.

The implementation was handled internally with support from HPE's administration training included with the hardware package.

Working with BladeSystem for over ten years has provided significant returns, as we're utilizing the systems beyond the typical five-year hardware change cycle.

We paid approximately 60,000 Saudi Riyals per year for support from HPE, equivalent to $15,000 USD. However, some years, we did not utilize their support services.

We received proposals from HPE's partners and competitors as part of our decision stage.

I recommend HPE BladeSystem, considering it has more updated features, including AI, in their newer systems. I rate the overall solution nine out of ten due to its reliability and performance throughout the years.

The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs. The longevity of the system that it creates as well. Right now, we only have our job site, but we'll eventually grow into our large building, and the scalability of the BladeSystem is pretty endless. Now with the new technology like Synergy, it's kind of an offshoot of that almost, and I'm looking forward to utilizing even the Synergy in that whole environment as well. Especially now that the management software can manage all of those platforms.

I like the BladeSystem. I've been a fan of the BladeSystems for a while, since when they came out way back in the day. My first BladeSystems I used were IBM and then HP. I liked the density. A lot of servers in one rack. There's the backplane. We get a lot of throughput in speed and the ease of attaching it to our networks is very good about the BladeSystems. It's less of everything. It's less cabling coming out of the BladeCenter, so it's easier to manage, it's just a cleaner system.

I was looking at the HPE Synergy. What I see there is it's the next evolution of that whole BladeSystem. It pretty much puts compute, it puts storage, and it puts memory all in one pool. It's being managed by the one management module and so it's basically the whole pool data center resource. It also gives the flexibility of utilizing it in a fully virtualized environment or, if you need a physical server, you can utilize a physical server as well. Then extend out to some of the older devices like the c7000 or something, can enter into that whole resource domain. That's compelling as well.

It's very stable.

In my past at a couple director positions I've held, I've utilized Cisco's UCS product quite a bit. I've had experiences with that from when that product first came out. They're both very good systems. I think Cisco makes a solid product there. It might be coming to its life's end now. As things like Hyper Converged is starting to really take off and I like the slant that HPE has with the Synergy platform. That's almost like taking a BladeSystem or UCS kind of technology and moving it to the next level. That's what I see HPE doing with Synergy.

It was very easy.

I had HPE do it.

Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem.

These are rack servers. 

We have data for banking services. We use Windows servers, mostly. We install applications and banking applications mostly, otherwise like some E-discovery services servers are there. We have almost 25 servers. Some of them are in a data center, and some of them are in-house.

We can enhance the processors and increase the RAM. It's easy to do. It's very easy to upgrade.

The solution is issue-free and works almost flawlessly.

It's simple to set up if you have some experience with the product.

The solution is very stable. 

It is scalable. 

If you've never used the solution before, the initial setup can be complex. 

The pricing is high. If you compare it with Lenovo systems, the pricing is too high. At this point in time, we are looking for some servers and when we have compared the prices we found Lenovo is the lowest option, even though they have about the same level of services. 

We'd like them to be more scalable.

I'd like to be able to implement a single test system.

I've used the solution for a few years. 

It's a stable, reliable solution. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good.

They can scale if it is required. 

We have more than 1,000 users on the solution right now.

Technical support is good. They are helpful and responsive.

Positive

Depending on your knowledge, the solution can be very easy or a bit complex to set up.

These are rack servers, so most of the time goes into acquiring them. Once you order them, it takes around four to eight weeks to get them. Once you get those servers, they can be deployed in a week or five days' time.

How many people you need for maintenance depends upon the technical guys as well as the applications themselves. If you're maintaining, then you just need two or three guys. However, it would take more resources if you talk about connectivity and application maintenance and other parts. It also depends upon the number of servers we have installed. 

The cost of the solution is high. There are other cheaper options.

There is no licensing. You pay for the solution once. 

We are currently comparing the solution to Lenovo.

We use it in-house and in a data center.

They need to make the product more scalable and price-efficient. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. It needs to be a bit less expensive. 

Our IMS system, or internal information system, is run on the server. If we have some sort of issue with our student management system, then we run it on that server as well. 

The solution is very fast and the power consumption is great. 

Sometimes there will be a delay and it will take some time to restart the server.

The servers are a little bit huge, so it would be great if they could renew the size. Still, the Dell servers are comparatively large, but handling these servers, even just moving them or mounting them in the rack, is a huge challenge for us. If it is possible to reduce the size, that would be great.

We have been working with this solution for two or three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. We have employees using this solution remotely and locally, so I believe there are more than 200 users. 

We have rarely had to work with the technical support team, but they are okay. We are satisfied with them. I would rate them an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The initial setup was not hard because our expert technicians handled it. It might be a little bit confusing to do the BIOS setup if you don't have much experience, but if you have expertise you can handle it. 

We handled deployment in-house with our own experts. We also have an internal team that deals with the maintenance of the solution, and it is very easy to maintain.

We have an annual license. 

We currently use both HPE BladeSystem and EMC from Dell. Personally, I prefer HPE because I have more experience with it. 

As a tech guy, I recommend HPE for heavy usage. If you need to use it for applications and multitasking purposes, I recommended HPE because you can simultaneously run different applications without any delays or issues.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

We use HPE BladeSystem for many purposes, such as enterprise applications and Oracle transfers.

The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is simplified management.

There is always room for improvement everywhere with the HPE BladeSystem.

I have been using HPE BladeSystem since they were released, approximately 25 years.

HPE BladeSystem is a stable solution.

The HPE BladeSystem is extremely scalable.

We have some clients that have thousands and hundreds of people using the solution.

The initial setup of HPE BladeSystem is straightforward.

The price for HPE BladeSystem can vary between $100,000 to $1 million or above. The price can be high.

The solution is simple and easy to manage.

I rate HPE BladeSystem a ten out of ten.

We are using HPE for the virtualization. All machines are virtualized, and we are using them in the clusters. They are highly available and set up on the default ones as well. For the DMZ, we use regular rack servers. Those are separate clusters.

The solution is very easy to use.

We find the product to be very stable.

The scalability is great.

Technical support is okay.

These particular blades are no longer being produced. If they produced more or offered support for them I would be interested in getting more.

It would be ideal if they had been offered at a lower price point. If they bring them back, I'd buy them at a lower price point. 

The support you get is dependant on the region. Some regions are better than others.

I have been here, in this company, for more than four years. We have been using the product since I have been here, so it's likely been more than five years that the company itself has used the product.

The stability of the product is very reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale well. It's not a problem if a company wants to expand it.

We have thousands of people that use it.

I've been in touch with technical support in the past. The level of service you receive depends on the region. We have two data centers, one in Frankfurt and one in Paris. When we were assigned to the Frankfurt team, they are okay, however, the local French team left us a bit unsatisfied.

Mainly we are using blade servers from different vendors. We have Cisco UCS, HPE blade servers, and Lenovo blade servers on the global team.

In previous companies, I used HPE and the Cisco blade servers as well - the Cisco UCS servers. In one other company, I used Dell servers as well.

It's my understanding that the initial setup is very straightforward and simple. However, I was not directly involved with the initial setup. It was two or three years ago.

I'm not sure exactly how long the deployment process takes.

We have five or six people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. They are all engineers and one is a team leader.

The price of the product was a bit on the high side. 

You do have to pay for the hardware and a yearly licensing fee.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities.

I would recommend it to others.

The primary use case of the solution is specifically for application virtualization.

Before this, we were using rack mount servers. We utilized almost 30% of capacity on those servers. But, with HPE BladeSystem, because of it's small capacity, in comparison to rack mounted servers, it gave us the flexibility to utilize all the hardware that we have.

The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature. When assigning the bandwidth to servers and segregation between data storage and data connections, it is valuable. An additional benefit is the virtualization environment.

HPE has a new solution it's called Synergy. I believe it's the new generation of solutions. It has capability of sharing the storage. It has open blade servers within the same enclosure.

It is really reliable and stable. 

It is scalable and suitable for our organization. We have not reached the maximum that HPE Bladesystem can reach.

The tech support is very good, but we usually use our own staff, and revert back to HPE if we are in need of extra support.

We are constantly evaluating HPE BladeSystem vs Cisco UCS and  HPE Synergy vs HPE BladeSystem .

HPE BladeSystems is an old technology that cannot fit all of the dynamic organizational needs of our company.