HPE Synergy Reviews

The stability of the solution is very reliable. 

The solution can scale up if a company needs it to.

The initial setup is very easy and quite straightforward.

I've found the user experience to not be that great. It's something that they could really improve on. They need to make it more user-friendly.

The profiles aren't so easy to work with.

We find the agility to be lacking.  

I've been using the solution for the past few years. I've used it for a while and have some time to get to know the product. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is great.

The solution scales very well. If a company can expand it, it can do so. 

Few people are using it now. Previously, we had many more users. Right now, we may have a few hundred users. 

We've never used technical support. We've never really had a need to reach out to the technical team. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

I also have experience working on Cisco products. While HPE is a good solution, I do find Cisco to be a bit better.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's not complex or overly difficult. A company shouldn't have any issues.

I'm a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with HPE.

My understanding is that we are on the latest version of the solution at this time. I can't speak to the exact version number.

I would advise if you need to choose between this solution and Cisco, that Cisco might be a better option. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is really a replacement for the BladeCenter. Though, we would like our customers to see it more in the composable fashion that it has been positioned. The primary use case (as our customer see it) is they can't go further with BladeCenter, so they are choosing Synergy.

Traditionally, our customers have been using their BladeCenter, and now Synergy, to run any type of mid-tier applications or virtualized platforms that, for whatever reason, don't fit in the hyper-converged area. 

From a hybrid cloud perspective, Synergies are more seen for the potential of integrating into orchestrated and automated deployments, so they can have cloud-like functionality on-premise. They are not quite at that yet, and in the couple cases where we have deployed it, that has certainly been the goal.

We do have one customer who very specifically uses it for back office applications during the day (during business hours), then they will actually swap it into a scheduling facility at night. Therefore, those jobs that are running off hours can be used for it. So, we do actually have one customer who is doing that.

In another case, we have a customer who is heavily orchestrated, and we have written a significant number of automation tools for them. In that case, we are in the process of PoC'ing that automation process and tying that into the orchestration tools. Whereas in the past, both their hyper-converged environment, as well their ProLiant rack servers and their BladeCenter, would not tie very well into the orchestration.

Productivity of deployment goes back to the automation tie-ins and fluidity of the resource. If they can reuse componentry, knowing they can do that based on a temporal basis, and they have some type of scheduling facility, then this makes it significantly easier.

It has the next level beyond hyper-converged:

1. It has that promise of combining the orchestration and automation.
2. Being able to no longer have an isolated bare metal environments, then converged infrastructure with virtualized environments. The ability to have both platforms in one infrastructure. Then, simultaneously have the ability to go between them and isolate workloads while still having shared workloads. That sort of mix and match and fluidity of being able to reassign.

Secondarily, the temporal value of it. If I only need a particular amount of compute for a specific period of time during business hours, then at night, I'm running a bunch of batch jobs, or doing something else, that ability to swap a profile, swap templates, and have compute assigned to something else, saves significant amount of money. As long as you are tying it into the automation and orchestration layers, it becomes much easier to do.

Continue the playbooks with the automation integrations. More of that would be good, as it has been great so far. 

I would really like to see the type of hardware add-on operationalization made simpler in some way. How do I have a chassis and add in a second or third chassis, but not have to be so aware that it is number 11 versus number 12 within the frame? If they can address that, it would be a home run.

Continue the path of integrating OneView into a single product. A lot of different people have different OneView experiences based on which product they have used it for.

In the past, there has been some question around the stability of networking components of it. It has been a long time since HPE has had a significant server issue, but from the networking component and newer networking components, there have been significant improvements from the past.

I love the idea of Synergy and its ability to scale out. Operationally, it is a little bit challenging to manage at this point. When you add onto it, you have to be very aware of where you are in the frame, on your count, and what components. You may have to move a satellite module or you may have to reallocate componentry, which is already there. That scale aspect is challenging. From a hardware perspective, it is not transparent.

From a scalability within existing resources, it is very scalable and much easier to use. E.g., I have deployment requests coming down from some orchestration layer and just need to add available resources and compute.

In a couple cases, it was really just sort of that end of life of BladeCenter. In another case, they saw the temporal value aspect and the customer thought that swapping would make a ton of sense.

There is more to keep in mind with Synergy. Remember that our customers are coming from BladeCenters. Where after 10 to 15 years of it, and everybody found it fairly simple at this point, then they have this new paradigm of scaling out to many multiple frames, and so many more modules. It is a change in mindset. Therefore, some people will say that it is complex simply because of that. It is not that difficult though.

We deploy with the help of HPE consultants. Our experience with the HPE consultants is very positive. They have been all over it, more so than the customer even.

For temporal use, when you throw on the fact that you're essentially doubling your capacity, right there you could claim a 50 percent TCO reduction. As far as ROI, that becomes a lot harder because it is dependent on the level of automation that you have built into that reallocation as you are introducing a step that wasn't there before either, where as you would have just built two different infrastructures and the cost would have been upfront. So, the ROI is really in the reduction of total costs.

It still sort of comes up occasionally against some of the HCI competitors, but it's a totally different approach.

Synergy is chosen based on that mix of being able to do bare metal, multiple types of virtualization and the fluidity of the resource rather than it being all virtualized, then fluidity.

Focus on the fluidity of resources and view everything from that lens. Always remember that is the justification for some of the complexity. Once you can set it up appropriately, it will be worth it. If you view it purely from a non-fluid, assign this - just like you would a blade, then you may find it more complex, and in some cases, more expensive to manage.

Right now, there are pros and cons to whether it is affecting our customer's IT infrastructure. It is probably net neutral because there are some complexity from an operationalization aspect that increases compared to what they're used to. Being able to know what number frame it is within the Synergy frame. Operationally you are ordering different parts differently based on where you are in that count. That adds a certain complexity to them managing it on a growth and scale perspective. So, you are sort of giving up one efficiency to get the other right now. That is something that will be addressed better over time, and it is even better than it was two years ago already.

It hasn't proven to implement new business requirements quickly, but it certainly has that promise. In its worst case, it is just another hardware-centric solution. In its best case, the customer will have the automation tie-in to actually make this happen.

Biggest lessons learnt:

1. You should be aware of your workloads from a time basis, which means you need to be monitoring and analyzing those workloads more. 
2. The absolute necessity of automation.

Improved storage, scalability, and ease-of-use. It is a lot packed into a small chassis/frame.

• It has reduced a lot of our infrastructure down to a few systems. This is opposed to larger, two and four use systems. It's knocked us down to a few frames and made it a lot easier to use.
• A single unified infrastructure that can be optimized for all workloads via software makes our life easier. It reduced man hours, because we only have four people running the shop. The less time I have to spend on it, the more time I can spend in other areas.
• The programmatic interface of the synergy API was clean, simple, and intuitive. This automation will make IT more efficient, as I will spend less time in front of the wheel.
• The software defined infrastructure simplifies our operations, in that I can get more things done and pushed out to customers faster.
• The automated life cycle management affirms where our drivers make their IT operations simpler. It's all in one place. You've got the firmware and the software that all comes down in one spot. You just apply it from there.
• The architecture eco-system system was part of our decision to invest in it for the future. It took some doing. It took a buy-in from everyone through management. Given its price point, it took a lot more than that. It was an infrastructure change for us. We value a modular infrastructure with shared power and Googling with an integrated search engine. We end up with one single system to do everything. It's just easier to manage, as opposed to 20 servers where you've got to change out supplies, memory, and everything else. You've got to maintain all that. Now, it is just one unit.

Firmware. I'd get the firmware to be a little more secure and a little more streamlined.

So far, the stability is good and it's running fine. I can't complain.

Scalability is good. I can take it and move it between two data centers, have one in each data center, and move things back and forth. That's mostly a function of the OS, but the hardware, being as robust as it is, works well.

When I get to a human being, technical support is great. Up until then, it's a big challenge. They want to try to do a little bit by email, which drives me out of my mind, honestly.

We didn’t use a previous solution. We are an HPE shop. We knew that we needed to invest in this solution because it was cool. The scalability is what did it for us. The next level progression was to go from the C7000 chassis. It just linked itself to the infrastructure that we're going to.

When selecting a vendor, we look at support and cost point.

The installation was very straightforward.

Take the time to go through it. Put your hands on it, at somebody else's lab if you can. See if you can get a demo unit. Plug it in and try it.

I don't remember the models. However, there are Synergy nodes built in the cloud infrastructure with a design utilization. Some of the project was within two Synergy baskets with a full load installed.

The solution is stable. 

We didn't have any problems handling the initial setup.

You can scale the product.

Support is very helpful.

Maybe two years before, there were issues with drivers. However, the issues were always fixed quickly.

They were not so deep into integration with VMware. As a partner of VMware, I'm focused more on VMware products and I don't remember many details about HPE now that time has passed. However, there should be more integration. 

I used the solution for a while. I worked as a partner in a big integrated company, and we did some projects for this technology with this recruitment.

The solution is stable and reliable. There were no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale. We started one project from one basket and we added a second basket without any problems.

Technical support has been knowledgeable. Everybody is excellent.

Positive

I don't remember any problems handling the initial setup. Everything was described and really detailed in the documentation. 

We work with a really small team. Two guys handled the deployment and maintenance. It's not necessary to have a huge team to deploy and run the production.

We had help from the local HPE office. If we had any questions, we were able to ask the technical guys from the local HPE office. I don't remember if we had any really big issues.

I worked with the technology and never handled the licensing aspect. I'm not sure of the exact costs. 

Whether or not this is the right solution for a company depends on the use case. It's not really for everyone. I don't really want to recommend it to everyone. For some cases, it's a really good solution. For other cases with a high-density environment, it's not ideal.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for VM virtualization and Oracle standardization.

The virtualization is very good.

We find it quite useful for the Oracle Database.

The solution is stable.

We've found the scalability to be reasonable if you are ready to invest in it.

Technical support is excellent.

The connectivity needs to be improved. The compatibility with old infrastructure and networking should be better than what it is now. The networking part is very complex. It should be simplified.

The setup was a bit complex.

They need to make it easier for firmware upgrades. The virtual connection is very complex and they need to make it easier. 

The storage configuration should be improved. When we are connecting the 3PAR storage to Synergy, I have to manually add the values again when what should be happening is, when I'm connecting, when I'm assigning, the storage should be automatically allocated.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

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

I have had some issues regarding scalability. It's scalable, however, the thing is we need to purchase hardware. You need to be ready for an investment when scaling.

Technical support has been great. We're quite satisfied with the level of support we get. The assistance they offer is perfect.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex. It wasn't exactly straightforward and simple. It would be ideal if they could simplify the process in the future to make it easier.

The deployment took about one business day.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We are using the HPE Synergy Composable Solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We're doing a new product line, we're now doing Big Data. We had the help of HPE on it. They advised we use this platform, so that's why we have it.

Shorter delivery times. Where we now have a delivery time of about six weeks, we hope to go back to days.

It's a bit easier to manage than the C7000s. But we're still finding out how it works, it's all new to us. And we're also using it for new concepts, the old systems we used were ESX. And these systems are used for Mesosphere and bare metal Red Hat deployments.

The deployment time of a system through OneView is pretty slow, but apparently that's being addressed in an upcoming update.

Also not a big point. It's stable, but all the other solutions we have are stable as well, so this is not a main point.

The other solutions that we have are scalable as well. At least they are scalable enough for our needs.

Good, very good. As far as we have a need for them, they are knowledgeable.

It was pretty complex. We weren't allowed to do the setup ourselves, we had to have an engineer from HPE. In my book, that's complex, if I cannot do it myself.

It's a fully integrated solution with OneView. With the new servers and technology, we can have more resources, RAM, and CPU. We are using it primarily for VMware.

Now that we have the new generation, the G10, we have the security. That was one part that was missing. That is going to be important, because we will be running on Generation 9.

The stability so far is good. We did the PoC in February and we are going to get into production in June. We have been running tests and it has been stable. We had some issues in the initial setup, but basically it's what we expect from HPE. We had an issue during the initial setup with the 40 Gigabyte cards. They weren’t working, so we had to work really closely with HPE support to get them to work. It took about two weeks to fix the issue.

Scalability is one of the benefits of using Synergy. We are able to add and grow without any problems.

Technical support went really well. They were excellent in helping us find the solution to the issue. They were eager to get this done and they fixed it correctly. That was good.

The lifespan for the C-class are going to be over in a few years. We are moving all of our production systems for a cycle. We have about 3-4 year cycles of use, and then we are going to the new platform, which is the correct option. We will not to go to the C-class, which is the old option.

The setup was a little bit complex, because it was the first one. It is a new product, so nobody knows it too well. We are kind of learning on the way, but it is OK. It's a new technology, so I think it's normal. It still needs a little bit of ironing out to be completely integrated with OneView. There are still some issues.

It's a new solution, but you are in good hands with HPE support. Use HPE support. They will give you a hand to go through the user experience, setup, and implementation.

We give out certification training on HPE product lines. Synergy is one of the product lines. It's part of our composable infrastructure in our hybrid IT training. We use Synergy for giving customers and partners hands-on experience.

It gets us lots of training-development work because the product is changing all the time. It's a relatively new product. It was introduced a couple of years ago and it's changing quite rapidly. That's a benefit for us as we continue to update the training of it.

The key advantage that we teach people is speed to market, or speed to productivity, thus, reducing the time it takes to provision business services. That's the key positive aspect of Synergy.

Composability. We're developing training. We show our partners the value of composability and how it can meet their needs.

I would just like it to work.

The stability is poor. It's a relatively young product and the management solution that drives the product shows its signs of immaturity. There is a new version being released this week. Things are getting better but they need to get better more quickly.

From a scalability perspective, the platform is great.

Technical support is poor. We've had issues with the system. Firmware upgrades, for example, did not go as they should have gone. After placing a support call to HPE, several weeks later problems actually got worse as a result of what they instructed us to do.

We were shipped the very early solution and it's installed in a data center in Michigan and we had other people do it. We helped them do it remotely but it wasn't hands-on for us. The kit is owned by HPE but it's managed by an external company and we work with that external company to use the kit and help set it up. Our experience with them during the setup was great.

The main challenge we faced was that when it was installed it just did not work. There were faulty components and it took weeks of troubleshooting to find the faulty components, get them replaced. Getting help from HPE was difficult. Nobody knew about the product. It was a brand-new product and people had not been trained on it. That part was not a great experience.

The setup was very complex. The intention for Synergy is that it's auto-discovery. You turn the power on and everything happens and it's all done for you. It absolutely did not work that way. If you have one faulty component - and we had several - it just does not do what it says on the tin. Again, it was an early production model, so we understand things go wrong. But again, getting support for the product was very difficult because nobody knew about the product because it was brand-new.

Come on a training course. Find out what it can do for you.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using this solution is that composability is the way to go. No one else can do it. It will be a great win for HPE when it works.

It decreases deployment time, certainly, when it works. I can get an operating system or a hypervisor deployed within five minutes. Whereas prior, it might have taken me five hours to do the same job. It's quite significant. What we don't see are the 700 hours that we have to spend setting it up and getting past the bugs in the software to make it work. When it's working its fine. I don't tell customers this. However, it is marketed as a panacea and, with the appropriate work, it can be.

I rate Synergy at five out of ten. Once they resolve the issues, it'll be great. The product is only two years old. In another year, another two years maybe, it'll be fantastic. It's just, the reality is, it's breaking new ground. No one else has this solution and there are issues with it. It's possible that much of the skill that was within HPE as a company, is no longer with the company. As a result of people moving away from the company, HPE is left with insufficient expertise, especially in the support area.