HPE ConvergedSystem Reviews

We are a consulting firm, and this is one of the solutions that we implement for our customers.

The majority of deployments are on-premises. If it is a cloud deployment, then it is a hybrid model.

Improvements to the organization depend on the customer, but usually, it assists them with consolidation. For example, they're replacing server racks with the converged system because they have too little space to have a rack full of servers.

One of the valuable components in this solution is HPE Synergy, which is a useful tool for deployments and updates.

This solution is very simple to use.

I would like to see better manageability and integration with third-party tools.

I would like to see persistent memory deployed in this solution, as I have not yet seen it in any converged system.

I have never had any problems with the technical support for this solution.

There are several levels of support available. These include simple Foundation care, which basically is a best effort. There is Proactive care, and even Datacenter care, which means you get an appointed account manager and much more rapid response. However, these options are expensive.

The complexity of the initial setup is dependant on the customer. I find that it is quite easy if you have all of the details, such as the IP addresses, raid volumes, and shared disks. The configuration is straightforward, although sometimes you have a complex scenario and you really have to tweak.

This is an expensive system and not every customer has the kind of budget to support it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

One thing that we find peculiar is, when you buy ConvergedSystem, it seems to be behind in the versions it supports. For example, vSphere 6 is just now being supported. OneView 2 is just now being supported, even though they have announced OneView 3. We're already a version behind. I know they're probably working and testing as quickly as they can, but we always seem like we're behind the curve with these new features that we know are out that we can't take advantage of and that are supported on the blades individually. They're supported on the blade system individually, but once you get the ConvergedSystem, all of a sudden, they're not supported. I understand that we want a rock solid infrastructure that's well-tested, but I'm hoping they can speed up compatibility with newer versions of software and drivers and so on.

We still have some of the growing pains just getting the system in. There's a lot of miscommunication between us and HPE of what we actually wanted, what they delivered. It was sold as being more of a plug-and-play solution. It really wasn't that way for us, maybe because we did want to make modifications. I can't say it's all HPE's fault, because we did make modifications and made some of those modifications at the last minute. It was just growing pains with that relationship and getting to understand each other and what each other needed. We're fresh off of that; we we're just using it. I still feel like it's been a pain because it took so long to get us here. But I think going forward, it will be smooth. Our next system will probably be plug-in. We'll plug it in the way they advertised it. It's hard for me to say for sure, but I think we're at the point where it would be plug and play from now on and it would be easy.

I think it has been stable. We did have issues with the Dell blades, had some instability there. Again, it's brand new. Everything has been stable, though we've had an issue with the NICs reporting errors, but we think those are false reports. There's supposedly a patch, but the ConvergedSystem - as it was given to use and shipped to us - had errors.

I wouldn't expect that a well-tested, purpose-built appliance from HPE would report network errors. We're still trying to figure that out. I will say it seems to be false positives, possibly because the system is stable. But again, we don't have a big load on it because we're just now testing it, so I can't really speak to, when we scale it up, will it perform? Will it stay stable? But, for now, it's been stable.

I can't really speak to scalability yet because we have just a small test environment now. We're looking to move it to production later on, I think, the end of this year. We haven't really had to scale it that far. We've only done a little primary testing, not a large load of servers or storage or anything like that, but it's performed very well so far. There's so little data actually on it. I can't really speak to the scalability of it. I know it scales to 128 servers. We might need to scale past that. We'll probably need several ConvergedSystems, which is, maybe, not ideal. If it could scale past 128 servers, that'd probably be beneficial. For our needs right now, we haven't hit that yet. We probably will in the future but it's too soon.

Technical support hasn't seemed to be that simple or that easy. I still feel like our calls get redirected to a specific team, which is fine. It is one number to call. What I've found frustrating is that sometimes when we call in, I don't think they know how a ConvergedSystem works. The whole point is you have one number to call and that person should know what that is and about what you have. It's not just some blades and some servers and some storage. You actually have a purpose-built system that they're supporting. There's been a lot of confusion with that. I don't understand why it's not known when we call that number what we have and what kind of support we expect.

We used to use Dell blades and we didn't have Virtual Connect, so configuring the networks and all of that for our servers took a lot longer. It's easier to provision the server now that we've moved to HPE and Virtual Connect, and how the ConvergedSystem is architected makes it easier. Just ease of configuring networks and configuring your server.

We wanted a converged solution. We wanted something that came as an appliance, with basically everything configured and Dell didn't have an offering that met our needs. We looked at different vendors and we narrowed it down to HPE. We went with the HPE solution.

We were looking at FlexPod, the NetApp solution; Hitachi had a solution; and EMC's solution. None of those did as well as HP's. Some vendors were too strict. EMC was too strict. You couldn't touch their hardware. "This is how you're going to get it. You can't change anything. Take it or leave it." HPE was a little bit more flexible. "This is our ConvergedSystem. This is how it is, but you can make a couple of modifications if needed to fit your business." That's why we went with them. They were a little bit more flexible.

I think it's too soon to accurately rate the product. Based on experience so far and what I expect out of it, I'll give it an 8 (four stars). That's based on what I expect in the future and what I know it's capable of, not really our experience so far because I know we've had some bumps in the road. Again, I think some of them are our fault. I don't want to blame HPE for that. I think it's a solid product. I've used HPE blades in the past at a previous employer. They've always been rock solid. I believe in the hardware. We've been using HPE storage at my current company for three years. I used it for six years before that, rock solid. No issues. I believe in the hardware.

It's tough. One because there's now the Composable Infrastructure, the Synergy platform, which is newer. Again, this is the problem: you go with a converged solution because you want it rock solid, stable. The problem is you're always behind the technology curve when you do that because now there's a new product out that offers new features. I would have a hard time telling someone to go out and get a converged solution. One, because, well, just because it's behind technology-wise. But if they work for a company that doesn't care about the latest and greatest features, and they just want stability, sure, go with a converged solution. But if you need the latest features, and you need to stay on the bleeding edge, I couldn't recommend the converged. I could recommend the blades probably. They probably want to look at Synergy and the newer product line but it's kind of funny that the converged system already seems to be legacy hardware even though it's still new.

We primarily use the solution as a container-as-a-service. We use it to host containers. It effectively supports a cloud-based container system.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to restore lost machines. Essentially its high availability capabilities are extremely valuable to us.

The solution needs to be easier to use. The administration's ease of use it poor and it needs a better administrative console.

The solution has a complicated front-end.

In terms of features, the solution is very complete. It doesn't seem to be missing features that I can see that would need to be added in future releases.

I've been using the solution for three years.

The solution is incredibly stable. It's one of the great advantages of the product. We've never faced any problems when it comes to stability.

The solution is highly scalable in a modular fashion. We've never had any issues with scaling.

The tech support is really good, both online and with engineers. We've been satisfied with the level of service we've received.

I'm a consultant and have experience working with the solution both as a consultant and as an end-user.

We currently have thousands of people using the solution. In our IT department, we have about ten to 15 people working on the solution as admins.

I'd advise others to choose their use cases carefully. It's suitable for certain environments but not all environments.

Others would also be sure to read the small print and really understand the solution before implementation as well. For example, beware of any additional licenses you may need.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If it had a better administrative console, I'd give it full marks.

In Chile, most of our customers use VMware to virtualize several machines and make their hardware more efficient.

This is an expensive solution and could be improved with lower pricing. 

We have used this solution for 12 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. Our customers begin with an initial configuration and later add more servers, memory and other options to meet the demands of increased processing.

The customer service for this solution is good. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. We received the necessary training and the manuals are very clear and easy to follow. 

I would advise those considering this solution to ensure they begin with the correct sizing and configuration. If the configuration is oversized, they will pay a high price for features they do not use. If the configuration is undersized, they may not have all their needs met. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We find the deduplication and compression features to be most valuable, as well as that of the backup solution inside.

Features that should be addressed concern the HPE functionality and the interaction with VMware. We would also like to see additional website functionality, because the surfeit of those who come online makes the addition of complete information challenging.

We have been using HPE ConvergedSystem for several months. 

The technical support is French approved  and transpires in this language, which works for us. So, too, we share the same work hours with those of technical support and they are adaptable to our schedule.

All of the activity concerning the initial setup was complex, as we are obliged to coordinate it with HP support.

I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten.