HPE Superdome X Reviews

We just recently deployed it. We like the flexibility with the platform and our ability to stretch it across a lot of different areas of the company and product lines. For us it's ability to easily write, scale up and down remains to be seen.

There's a big upfront investment, but the total cost of ownership should be cheaper over the long term.

It's been stable, but again it's not yet in production.

Nothing is in production yet, we just deployed it four weeks ago. We're still in the setup phase. It will go in production in the next coming month.

We've used IBM and Dell in various phases of our history in our Blade Server center. Nothing on the same scale as Superdome.

It's relatively OK, but setup is always painful. I'm a CIO so I have a lot of people that work for me. The ones in the data center, I'm sure they hit some hurdles, they always do, but they made it work. They seemed to work through it, so at the end of the day it got done within the time frame.

HPE came in and set it up for us in our data centers.

We run a lot of environments for various products, some on OpenStacks, some on VMware, some on Windows, some on CentOS. We were looking for something that could scale and grow as we need it to across different product lines. We looked at traditional BladeCenters, and although this was a bigger investment upfront, over the longer term we felt it would scale and grow with us better.

There's a different architecture behind it from a BladeSystem. It's unique in that regard, that's why we chose it.

We've got a few of them, because we needed some really large machines. So far, they've been working pretty good.

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.

The performance and scalability.

We put a system on this which has a student information system which has attendance, grading, and all student information. We have 35,000 teachers which at least five to six thousand concurrent users there. You need a high performance machine to support that kind of concurrency. CPU and memory, it's just pretty good and helps us to support the students and the teachers of the school.

Hardware is hardware, there might be an issue with memory they have to replace memory or something but nothing major. There is some reporting that we will probably want to use it for on our next projects. We also use this for our major databases but we don't virtualize it.

We can buy two, three, or four depending on our admin, and we can just expand it. It's pretty good.

We have 24/7 support and can call HPE if we need anything.

Our team was involved and HPE helped us in the original implementation because it's a new product. They racked, stacked, installed it for us. In the beginning, HPE helped us with the installation of Windows 2012. The second time around when we purchased a second we installed it right ourselves on Oracle as we're pretty familiar with it now.

I recommend it because it's a fact, we use it and it's working fine.