We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers and HPE ProLiant DL Servers based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Rack Servers solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cisco rack servers are very easy to integrate with other products from different vendors."
"Its hardware is really reliable. We also like Cisco for its support."
"Excellent server solution with incredible network throughput."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the expansion and replacement of parts."
"The product's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack is the use of databases, such as MySQL."
"The most valuable features of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are integration and customization."
"HPE service in Taiwan is quick and professional, and ProLiant is cost-effective compared to Dell. Dell is good for one or two servers, but HPE is cheaper than Dell for a large deployment. Cost is the most important thing in the market."
"The scalability is very high in 380, so instead of using the high-end servers, you can use multiple servers and segregate the applications between the servers. "
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"It's reliable and stable."
"I am impressed with the tool’s stability."
"Its management, IOs, and stability are the most valuable features. It works fine. It has all the features of a typical server. All that can be done has already been done."
"iLO, in particular, helps us manage the servers better, especially as a lot of them are remote from where the IT staff are. We have some locations where we just have not got IT presence at those locations, so iLO really helps with that."
"It is stable."
"The product must add customer-friendly monitoring features."
"There is very little scalability for the cluster. If you need a higher availability, there is a user limitation. So that is the low side."
"The price of the solution is problematic, not the solution itself. It could be less expensive."
"The product's stability and delivery time could be better."
"Some customers have complained about delivery time. So, the main weakness is the lead time."
"I would like to see a little more integration with VMware."
"Definitely the support area needs improving. Especially the time response in case of hardware failure."
"The solution needs more capacity and more scalability."
"They should continue to maintain the stability that is there."
"I would like the solution to improve its storage and performance. Also, I would like to replicate data between on-premises and cloud in future versions."
"In terms of what could be improved, if I could have faster processors with less cores, that would be good."
"The solution could improve by providing more best practices from an architectural point of view. What are some recommended configurations for use, such as in a VM environment? HP provides some best practices but they are based on VMware, not on Red Hat. It would benefit for others to see the different use cases. How the HPE ProLiant DL Servers were used in the context of Red hat virtualization, and some configurations as an example to allow us to identify some points that we can improve in our platform. We could make our system more reliable and scalable."
"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."
"Its management console could be better."
"The hardware was frequently faulty and sometimes broke down."
"On the software side, I would like for the management of the server overall (including reviewing its health) to be a bit easier. Right now, we have something that sits on the server to make sure all hardware drivers and other thing are up to date. This is a pain to set up."
More Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is ranked 5th in Rack Servers with 29 reviews while HPE ProLiant DL Servers is ranked 2nd in Rack Servers with 156 reviews. Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is rated 8.4, while HPE ProLiant DL Servers is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers writes "The VIC card is the most important feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE ProLiant DL Servers writes "Good availability and management console with good reliability". Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is most compared with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers, Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers, Dell XR2 Rugged Server, HPE Synergy and IBM Power Systems, whereas HPE ProLiant DL Servers is most compared with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers, Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers, HPE Apollo, IBM Power Systems and HPE Synergy. See our Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers vs. HPE ProLiant DL Servers report.
See our list of best Rack Servers vendors.
We monitor all Rack Servers reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Another good question to consider is, how deeply are security and anti-tampering features built in? With the advent of Gen 10 servers HPE is implementing this right down in silicon whereas the rest of the marketplace is still using firmware features to try to accomplish this. This is arguably too late in the process to be able to guarantee what BIOS code you are actually running, what back doors have been slotted in or what spyware ‘features’ have been embedded!
Also, look where HPE are going with Synergy. They have taken a huge architectural leap forwards and the roadmap is hugely impressive.
I don´t know in deep Cisco servers, but if you compares a HP and a CISCO with identical hardware (same chipset, processor, amount of RAM,..), the benchmark are very similar.
In my humble opinión, it is very important ask for the warranty and tech support. And most important: if you need someday add more hardware to your server, you must know before if you don´t buy it to the server manufacture, you loose the warranty.
It is very tipical some server manufacturer sell very cheap their machines but when you need to add more memory and/or hard drives, it is obligatory buy them to the server manufacturer... an very expensive.
I would suggest visiting spec.org as there is a wealth of information available there. The benchmarks are run by the vendors but within guideline and industry verified. There are many different benchmarks available through this site depending on what you are really interested in.
Hope this helps
Depending on what kind of workload you are looking for, you can find some info. / results from www.spec.org. Since Cisco UCS and Proliant DL are commonly used servers in enterprise, there should be test results of various benchmark on these server models.
As per my experience, CISCO UCS C-series is having scalability issue but for HPE ProLiant DL RACk server is good in terms of scalability. HPE tech support is much better than CISCO UCS.
I suggest checking the key benchmark sites directly – TPC-C, SAP etc. Each benchmark is designed to test a specific system capability.
www.tpc.org
global.sap.com
I have attached the URL’s. The SAP testing is most revealing for overall systems performance and scalability. The most recent certifications show Cisco UCS servers eclipsing their HPE counterparts by notable margins. Standard Proliant systems are lower in total lines processed than Cisco units, and you have to move up to the HPE Synergy line to beat lower end Cisco C240 servers. However, the higher end 4-way Cisco C480 handily beats Synergy.