HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

One of our customers wants some on-premises rack servers and AD servers. I suggested buying an HPE server and doing virtualization on that. We are considering HPE ProLiant Gen9 Servers.

The feature that I find the most valuable is that all alerts are integrated with HPE InfoSight. Any problem related to an HPE server can be solved remotely at L1, L2 level.

They can increase the controller cache. Currently, it has a controller cache of up to 4 GB. The RAID controller card comes with a maximum of 4 GB cache in HPE servers, whereas it comes with a maximum of 8 GB cache in Dell servers. 

They can also improve the port size. HP provides a 25 GB port on the server, whereas both Dell and Cisco provide a 100 GB port. 

I have been using this solution for five to ten years.

It is stable.

Scalability depends upon the solution we are proposing.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took a maximum of one and a half hours. The deployment duration also depends upon the operating system.

I would recommend this solution. HPE servers are better than Dell and Wipro servers. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

They're reliable. They work and I'm familiar with them. The iLO has been a solid out-of-band management tool for us, in comparison to some other out-of-bands that I've had to deal with. The performance out of the box, the stability of the servers, HPE's turnaround for support, and resolving issues.

The new rail kits are terrible. The older rail kits were great and simple. It took one person to do it. Now the new rail kits for the DL line, since the Gen-8s, are terrible. It takes more than one person to be there present in order to rack one of those systems without endangering yourself or the server by letting it fall to the ground. The older rail kits were great, the new ones are horrible.

Very seldom do we have problems with the hardware. If we do, it's a grand module that went bad or something that went bad, or a hard drive that failed, but otherwise the system boards themselves rarely give us a hard time and it's good for production.

If we need more, we buy more, and put more in. It's all the whether we have one or five thousand.

Technical support was good.

Primarily, my organization has been a ProLiant job since I've been there. Prior to that, I wasn't in this industry to have alternate experiences.

The Gen8's and previous were pretty easy going. We just received Apollo 2000s that we're trying to deploy to now, and getting over the humps of learning the new UEFI deployment which is kind of mandatory. It pushed us over the edge from legacy bios mode to UEFI, so we've got some lessons to learn in our organization to deal with that change with the new Gen9's.

HPE seemingly always wins the cost-to-benefit ratio for performance.

If we were to move away from using Proliants and HP, I think I'd be disappointed. I've had nothing but good experiences really, racking stacking and deploying to ProLiants. Based on my track record I would say that's probably a pretty good path to go down.

They're reliable and they never break. They're very manageable. The management tools that are available are excellent. We've looked at other solutions in the past, and we always conclude that we don't want to move away from ProLiant and the BladeSystem. They just work, which is basically what our requirement is.

Particularly in the pre-HP days, with Compaq, we used to buy bigger servers, but we've got to a point now where we basically only buy two types of servers, either the ProLiant DL380 or the BL460 Blades. We don't buy any other hardware.

We're a very small IT group within the enterprise and we haven't got the money or the time to be spending tons of time configuring stuff out and messing around with it, fixing it when it breaks, and that kind of thing. It's a low-maintenance solution. Essentially, we don't have to do much of that with ProLiant, so it's absolutely a good fit for us.

The only improvement would be cost. If they keep driving the costs down -- and I don't think they're expensive for what you're getting -- they'd keep everybody happy.

We've been using HP ever since they were available as Compaq.

We've never had any deployment issues.

We've used them for many, many years and we get very few hardware issues.

It scales just fine.

They're really good. I've never had any issues. The few times that we do have to call HP, they always help us out.

It's quite hard comparing other solutions because I've been solely on ProLiant for so long now I don't have too much to compare to. Although, I looked at Fuji Systems a couple of years ago and it's just massively complex for no apparent reason. I don't see a better fit for our company.

My client is using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for virtualizing hyper-vision functions and sometimes needs to extend the servers for business applications. We are not dealing with financial applications, and in most cases, it is used for virtualization. I have extensive experience in this and have been searching for a solution for a long time without any issues.

Support is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The memory has room for improvement. I want the ability to upgrade the memory to avoid crashes.

The cost of the solution is high and has room for improvement.

I would like faster internet ports included.

I have been using the solution for over 15  years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is easy to scale. We can always increase the number of CPUs to meet our customer's requirements.

The technical support is good. We receive all the parts we need quickly.

We are experienced in using the HPE servers so we don't have any difficulty installing new servers.

The implementations for our customers are completed in-house with our help.

The solution is expensive. I give the price a five out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We are using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for all the databases and services in the bank I work at. We use HPE ProLiant DL Servers for service and for core banking and other computing systems, we use the HPE BladeSystems.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers are easy to use and the GUI is rather simple and intuitive. The Americans know how to make things beautiful. Their Japanese counterpart has outdated GUIs. There is a lot of other services and software that HPE provides for the server. The software can connect all the infrastructure to form a unified management or monitoring system.

In the HPE ProLiant DL Servers generation nine, there was a problem when the expansion cards were installed on the server. There was only a small amount of room for the top expansion cards that hand could insert or remove the cables inside.

I have been using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for approximately 10 years.

The stability of the HPE ProLiant DL Servers is very good.

I worked with HPE ProLiant DL Servers in different places and in different situations, I remember that there was a time we were having a disaster with high humidity in the room but we did not have any problems with the operations of the solution.

I have not used the technical support from HPE.

I have previously used the HPE BladeSystem.

When comparing the HPE ProLiant DL Servers to the HPE BladeSystem, the HPE BladeSystems are compact and need less space for installation. They can provide the same computing as the HPE ProLiant DL Servers in the same unit and are a lot easier to manage.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers have a higher price than Dell servers. However, the Japanese counterpart has the lowerest priced servers. The price of the HPE ProLiant DL Servers could improve, it could be less expensive.

I rate HPE ProLiant DL Servers an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for computing and to do database allocations

The product is very easy to use. It's extremely user-friendly.

The solution has always been very stable and reliable.

It's a well-made product. The construction is very high quality.

We found the installation to be very easy. It also does not take very long to deploy.

Technical support has always been very good. They and knowledgeable and they respond in a good amount of time.

The solution is a little bit expensive. It would be ideal if HPE could adjust its pricing to make the product more affordable.

I've been dealing with the solution for more than ten years. It's been at least a decade. It's been a long time.

The solution has been very stable over the years. It doesn't crash or freeze. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. The performance is always reliable.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand the product, it can do so with ease.

We have about ten or 12 users of the solution at this time.

Technical support has always been very helpful and responsive when we have reached out to them. We're satisfied with the level of support they provide us. They've been very good over the years.

We also use Dell servers as well. However, it's based on the project and the client.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's very straightforward and quite easy. A company shouldn't have any issues with the setup.

You can install it in less than ten minutes. It's a pretty quick process.

We handled the implementation ourselves, in-house. It was very easy. Our hardware team, our engineering team, handled the entire process. We have eight engineers on-hand that can handle implementations.

The solution is not cheap. It's quite expensive. It seems less competitive than other options on the market.

You don't pay for a license; you pay for the hardware outright.

We're an integrator. We can help clients set up the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. It's a very high-quality product.

In general, we have been very satisfied with the capabilities of the solution. It's well made and works well. I'd rate it at an eight out of ten overall.

I used it for building an application, database middleware servers. It performed very well for my needs.

IT is easily manageable and expandable as well as usability for anything. especially for clustering using VMware vCenter server solution.

There is a lot of processors, I am only using half of what I need. In addition, they update the ILO to V. 5 so maintenance remains very easy. You can easily monitor everything from office needs, storage, performance, power supply, and temperature.

If they could put more disk array in one node or rebuild it in the same server, it would be very helpful and more powerful.

The stability is better with the added microSD instead of LD, so you can still install your operation into the microSD and give the other storage back.

Easy, fast and strong to scale in a different performance like disks, memory,  and power.

During our first year of using tech support, it was very good. But recently there has been a lack of help from their support team. Unless it is a special case, they are not very helpful.

Used OLD IBM, Dell, Sun and Huawei they are good but not like HPE, give you deferent feels.

Actually, there are no comlexity in the setup everything is straightforward and clear.

All my implementation are done in house one, as it is very symbol and easy to learn.

Four months approximately according to the solution that using.

My advice is to start getting the training by themselves for how to manage HP Dl servers as the setup is easy to learn then make pricing according to model number and performance last ask the cost from Gold partner of HP as partners give a good discount.

Actually, every company that worked with have preferred vendor according to what systems integrators gave to them,  in Thishknet I did the evaluation and select HP again according to performance, usability and price.

Start to use Nutanix Solution with HPE Dl Servers that recommend by Nutanix.

They are good because we can isolate the customer's various stuff onto machines that have everything dedicated, rather than being a blade, where I share stuff with others and they do something dumb.

What would make it better from my point of view is if HPE spent more time on testing with the actual built-in Red Hat Linux drivers, as opposed to always trying to say, "Use our driver."

The stability is pretty good.

It's scaling where we need to go. The issues we have are more the application not scaling; application design issues, not hardware issues. The hardware will go further than our application will.

The technical support sucks, would be understating it, because the first line and the second line support tend to give out stupid suggestions that are completely useless, and they aren't listening to anything. It takes a lot of time to get through them, and that is every call I've been on with them. Oftentimes, I've got a very low expectation of HPE, and they go below my expectation a few times.

Initial setup was relatively straightforward.

We have some IBM machines, but we're mostly an HPE shop. I believe the only reason we bought the IBM was because at the time, HPE didn't have the feature we needed.