HPE ProCurve Reviews

We use HPE ProCurve in our institute for networking.

HPE ProCurve's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly.

I have been using HPE ProCurve for approximately 20 years.

HPE ProCurve is stable.

The scalability of HPE ProCurve is good. We have over 600 systems using this solution.

I have contacted the support from HPE ProCurve and they provide the best support. HPE ProCurve has a response to our issues the same day.

I have not used other solutions previously.

The initial setup of HPE ProCurve is easy.

We install the solutions ourselves using approximately two managers or administrators.

HPE ProCurve price could improve. We have a three-year warranty.

I rate HPE ProCurve a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a client switch, which supports the users, as a core switch of the whole network, and also as a service switch for only the servers and the environment.

The price is the solution's most valuable aspect.

It's easy to manage and configure. The configurations can be exported and imported to another solution. 

I don't see any flaw in the product at this time. I'm a happy customer. The only things that might need improvement would be the administrative tools and the graphical interface. The GUI could be improved on the administrative interface, for example.

The speed could be higher, and more than 10 gigabits. We are in the process of buying large switches, and the higher the speed the better. It's that feature that involves a high cost, however. We find it challenging at the moment to find a low-cost solution. 

I've been using the solution for 10-15 years.

The stability of the solution is good.

The scalability of the solution is good. We have about 70 users on the solution right now. We're a research center, so everyone has access to the tool. We use the solution 24/7.

We've never been in touch with technical support.

We did not previously use a different solution.

The complexity of the implementation depends on the setup. In our case, it was a bit complex. Deployment may take about four hours. I'm not sure exactly, as my colleague set up the solution.

We implemented the solution ourselves.

We don't need to pay for support for HPE. The only hidden costs are the man-hours involved in handling the solution.

He did evaluate Cisco many years ago, however it was too expensive to be viable.

We use the latest version of the firmware, or operating system, on the switches. We try to keep them updated. We use the on-premises deployment model.

It's difficult to give any kind of advice on the solution. It depends on the situation, what the infrastructure is, how advanced, and complex, etc. In general, HPE has products that cover almost everyone's needs from basic, small networks to complex huge campus networks for universities or large organizations. They have a good product line. It just takes some knowledge and competence to maintain them.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature is that you have a very flexible product. You can mix the ports and set up based on your network needs.

It can even compensate for fractions of fans or power supplies, which can easily be exchanged, for example.

The main benefit there is that they have one switch, with interval redundancy, power supplies, etc. that can be used as a core element within a network for providing flexible ports.

It is not really extendable. You have no interlink features for using it as a core, as it was was intended for in the beginning.

We've been using it since 2005 when it was the 5300 series.

We've had no issues with stability.

It's scalable as long as you have three spots. If not, it's air-card solutions. In the meantime, there are other popular solutions in the portfolio that are more scalable.

We had no support contract in that area so I cannot weigh in on that point. But all the other services, warranties, exchanges, etc. all worked well.

We switched because it was the most flexible one on the market from a port-modular perspective. It was the only one at that time where you had redundant components in one chassis.

You can set up without fail if you're experienced with such systems.

If there is a use case where this kind of switch is useful, I would say, yeah, go for it, use it. But with support contracts, and they are a good backbone, because these days, you need another layer of switching up in the higher level.

It is stable, and it fulfills our needs. We have all the functions we need, so we're totally satisfied.

There should be faster interfaces on the switch, such as 25 gigabits.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

We had Cisco before. It was considerably less than Cisco.

Its initial setup is easy. 

We had help from our supplier.

We are a public company, so we are obliged to take the best offer from the vendors. 
They gave us the best price for the needs we had. It was considerably less than Cisco. It had
maybe 40% lower cost.

We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and HPE.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

The primary use case of this solution is as a switch and we are working on link aggregation switches at the moment.

The features that I like the most are the price, the feature sets, the no-nonsense warranty, and lifetime updates. This is the main benefit.

With Juniper, I like that they have an option to bundle a configuration change and commit it with the confirmed option. The switch will roll back if you don't confirm the change.

If you make a change and you disconnect yourself from the switch, you will create an issue. You just wait five or ten minutes for the switch to change back to the previous configuration. This is a nice feature that is offered with Juniper, which would improve the HPE ProCurve.

I have been using this solution for about 25 years.

We are using the latest version.

This solution is very stable.

The model that we are currently using is scalable enough for me.

I don't contact the technical support often. It was a long time ago when I was last in contact with technical support and it was very good.

While it has not been recent and they may have changed, when I used them, it was very professional. They were very nice and they solved the issue that I was having.

Also, they ship replacement parts or replacement products with no problem.

I work with several clients with several vendors, so I have experience with other solutions.

Most of the time our clients are using several vendors and we are trying to standardize to just one of them. HPE was used the most at that time.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

It takes less than a day to deploy this solution.

I completed the implementation by myself.

You buy the switch and that's it. 

It has a lifetime warranty, that includes lifetime updates.

I have looked at different vendors. I looked at Cisco, which is the main competitor.

Based on the required features and price, HPE was the better option.

If they are looking into implementing this solution, just go with it. It would be very wise.

I would recommend this product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

It gives us the single-point visibility across the whole infrastructure that's quite important to us. The centralized management console allows us to integrate the output data from these switches into a centralized log management system. With it, we're able to understand configuration management and risk across a single architecture.

With a single point of visibility for the identification of risk, we don't have to stand up different infrastructures to manage a configuration across the estate. The benefits are very agnostic, but for us it's all about having the appropriate product in place to allow us to do that centralized formation rather than having to get different systems doing different things.

We'd like for it to provide logical separation at the switch, building security into the product. I've seen that their new technology does this, and that's what we're most interested in. Integration of NAC and other features of that nature to embed into the actual network would provide as a great return on investment. Again, it would give us that single-point visibility, single-configuration space that important for us.

We don't have any issues with deployment.

It's been fine from a stability standpoint, though we had some early teething issues, but that, I think, came down to our configuration. Beyond that, the architecture has always been fairly stable. Our inter-site linking could be better, which affects quality of service, but the actual ProCurve itself just keeps going.

We're looking to completely replace our environment with a newer version. We've added to our existing infrastructure but expanding it out physically. We're now looking at scaling it up and merging our infrastructure with other organizations. It's proving, currently, to be capable of doing that.

I haven't used technical support directly, but I haven't heard of any issues with it.

We had Alcatel, and then we brought in HP about 10 years ago. We just wanted, as I recall, a program refresh. We were just looking at what was the best fit for our organization, what was scalable, and what was cost effective. I believe that at the time Cisco was cost prohibitive. We went for the more affordable and balanced, scalable solutions, which we found with HP.

We're currently looking at HP and Cisco, and we'll be pushing a tender out for others to come on board as well, so it might not just be Cisco and HP. Certainly we're in the process of reviewing those two vendors.

The solution is a network switch, this is what it is used for by my customers.

The most valuable feature is reliability.

Since we transfer from one to ten gigabits of information, in a future release, it would benefit to have more high-speed ports. For example, the uplink should be 40 gigabits or 100 gigabits. That would be very welcome. The first few models of HPE ProCurve that do have such features are way too expensive for our customer.

The image of the solution has dropped in recent years due to HPE enterprise management. Moving the location of where the product line is produced was not good.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

We have found the solution to be entirely stable.

The solution is easy to scale. We predominately deal with small-sized businesses and the biggest configuration we have implemented so far has been 84 screens.

We have used Mikrotik and Cisco products before. For the Mikrotik products, we only use models that are routers and with the Cisco products, there seems to be a new backdoor or a failure in firmware discovered and has to be patched. I have found this solution to be the best.

Being an information scientist and a service provider, the installation is simple.

We do the implementation and the difficulty depends on the number of ports and workstations the client works with. We do not do DHCP configurations, we work with static IPs only. Each port and PC has to be configured separately which can take time.

The price could be more competitive. Everything is included in the price as there are no security features that need to be updated, it is just the hardware alone.

Before purchasing this solution it is important to read the manual, it has everything you need.

I rate HPE ProCurve an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to connect our network.

The solution is fast and inexpensive. 

ProCurve is easy to manage.

The solution doesn't have web-based management, which is why we've moved to a different solution.

I've been using the solution for eight years.

It is stable.

The solution is very scalable.

I never used HPE technical support.

The initial setup is straightforward. You can deploy it within 15 minutes out of the box. You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

I handled the implementation myself.

We did evaluate other options, including NETGEAR, before choosing the solution.

We used the on-premises deployment model. We're resellers of the solution.

Currently, I use a different solution that offers web-based management so I can gain access from anywhere and don't have to be on-site to manage the solution; I've switched from HPE earlier this year.

I'd recommend the solution. It's good and easy to use.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.