Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series [EOL] Reviews

Our primary use case for Cisco HyperFlex HX is internal. We use it for internal hyper-converged. I post VMs for internal use and for customers.

Cisco HyperFlex HX has improved the way our organization functions in the way that the time to deliver a VM takes me five minutes. In comparison, my cloud team's response is a couple of days based on all their overhead policies, procedures, and ticket requests. This is substantial.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is easy to use all across the board. I can do hyper-converged without being a storage guy. That's a big deal.

They should fix the upgrade process. The upgrade process is great. It is seamless 70% of the time, but when it doesn't work, it goes south. Cisco needs to fix some of those upgrade bugs and it will be a perfect solution. That would be good for somebody who doesn't want to spend a lot of time micromanaging the device in production.

It is very stable. I've been running one cluster since 2016 with no outages. I've got two other clusters that have been running flawlessly.

Cisco HyperFlex HX has got great scalability. Right now, they offer a potential scale that is well beyond my network requirements.

Cisco's technical support originally was outstanding, but it has declined over the last 12 months. I've heard they're trying to do better, but I haven't been overly impressed with their support recently for HyperFlex.

We weren't using any previous solution. I was trying to redesign how we deployed services and tools to our customers. The only way to do that was with virtualization.  

I needed something like Cisco HyperFlex HX because I'm a network guy. I'm not a server or storage guy. I wasn't the VM guy. I needed something that I could support with very low maintenance and very few hands. Cisco HyperFlex HX has fulfilled that need greatly.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

For the deployment, we consulted with Cisco directly.

HyperFlex and Nutanix were the main two products that I looked at. The reason I eventually chose Cisco was cost and data center footprint. Nutanix was twice the physical footprint in the data center than HyperFlex.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product a solid nine because of the upgrade process. Everything we've been doing with it is blazing a new trail. 

We've been dramatically changing how we deliver the service. Not only am I changing how we deliver the service, but the tools team is changing the platform they're delivering it on too. It's all a new investment. There are not a lot of cost savings today that we can realize.

You can deploy Cisco HyperFlex HX with very little knowledge of UCS, hyper-converged, or storage. There is very little ramp-up time. UCS manager takes a little bit of getting used to. Cisco HyperFlex HX is a solid product. I can't steer people away from it.

We use it as an application server and for storage.

The feature that we are most interested in is the scalability. When needed, we are able to add more nodes and scale it up further. That is the feature which we sought. All three nodes are similar and maintaining paths is easy.

Our company has various business divisions. One of the business divisions has shifted to a new location. Other divisions will join in the future. We have started a data center for the first division that shifted, and as and when more divisions join, we'll be adding more nodes. That is the reason we see scalability as an important feature.

I would like it to be easier to manage the server, create VMs, and manage the VMs on the client.

As far as the server is performing, everything is good. There have been no problems and no downtime. We haven't been using it a long time but up until now it has been stable.

Our technical support is done through our partner.

We were using more on the VMware side. This is the first time we are using HyperFlex. We had an HPE-based system which we replaced with this. It was HPE Simplivity but it was no good. We did not get good feedback about Simplivity.

The deployment was very fast, they completed it in a couple of days. Cisco ships all the servers pre-installed. It was pretty straightforward. We didn't really have an implementation strategy. It wasn't so complicated.

The deployment only required one person from our side - our server maintenance engineer - and one from the implementation partner.

The initial setup was done by our implementation partner, S.K. International. Initially they struggled a bit and then, finally, they did a good job.

They are maintaining it right now. We may take over after a year. We will have a person to do all the maintenance. We already have a team maintaining the other servers, so maybe we will have them do this too.

Initially HyperFlex was a little costly, it was higher, but Cisco wanted to get into our company, so they gave us a fair discount.

We have also gone for another setup from Cisco, which we should soon receive, the vGPU. On this second purchase they were not able to give the same discount.

We had various options. We looked at Dell EMC, Nutanix, and others. We also evaluated Simplivity, from HPE, and we finally ended up with HyperFlex.

With Cisco, the entire solution was from the same vendor, whereas with Dell EMC and Simplivity there were different vendors. Our main point was scalability. That's where Cisco scored well, but most important was a good price.

There are around 250 users working on it right now. It is used for our manufacturing solution which collects information and Exchange data. There are other users who are using the storage.

We will expand its use in the future. As far as the compute is concerned, we will be using it to pick up 60 percent of the work. As far as the storage goes, we are only using ten to 15 percent. In the next few years we will expand and in the seventh year we may have to upgrade or replace the server.

We use it in our production environment for some tasks, such as availability, easy scalability, easy setup, and independence from too many solutions put together. We use FlexPod as another one for mutualized infrastructure.

It is easy for one person to manage, and you don't need to have different expert specialists to configure your storage networking, on the server side, power side, etc. 

It is an out-of-the-box solution. It can be used with little to large size equipment and make things work quickly.

Its most valuable features are:

• Its flexibility
• It is a non-stop solution.
• It is an all-in-one solution.
• It is a cost saving solution. 
• When we use it for VDI solutions, it is very easy to deploy and support.

I would like to have an easy solution calculation to plan my infrastructure and complete my licenses. Because as of now, I have to read a lot of materials and documents.

We have been using this solution for about two years and nothing has happened. We have had no downtime yet. I believe it will work perfectly over the long-term.

It is very easy to scale with this solution.

Their tech support is very clear and easy to work with, and we haven't any problem with them.

We evaluated:

• Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series vs Dell EMC
• Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series vs NetApp
• Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series vs AppDynamics.

The setup was complex, especially since we usually do all the planning, sizing, and workflows before integration.

We always deploy all the solutions for our team. Because our market is not as large as in big countries, our partners sometimes do not seek out teams who can deploy difficult solutions. Since our company is one of the biggest in our country, deployments depends on very hard integrations between system. This is too hard for an external company because they would need to take a long time to understand what we need and how we need to deploy it. The easiest way is to have our own team.

Pricing is better if you buy more Cisco products.

Don't afraid to try other solutions. Companies are constantly changing. Sometimes some little companies bring about the perfect solution for other products. You should research everything.

Cisco has a very wide range of products. You can build everything within Cisco products, and it will be easily deployable. The programming language is the same between it and other software and hardware companies.

It is very scalable. It is also very secure. Cisco's security portfolio is integrated with it, which makes it secure.

It is a platform-based device. Its performance is also fairly good in comparison to any other solution.

If we compare it with VMware, the VMware product is basically very open, and it can be easily integrated with any platform. VMware product is also available on the cloud and is not an appliance-based product, whereas Cisco HyperFlex is an appliance-based product. Companies that want to use HCI as a platform or as a service would prefer something without an appliance. A SaaS-based product is better for a customer who is using the cloud and has multiple resources, workflows, and devices on the cloud and wants to go for a hyper-converged solution. This is where improvement is needed. In addition to an appliance-based product, Cisco should provide a SaaS-based product.

Its price should be lower. Cisco needs to work on the pricing model for this product. Its price is a big road blocker when competing against Nutanix and VMware, which are its main competitors.

I have been using this solution for the last two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable.

I don't set it up, but based on the information that I have from my customers, it is not difficult to set it up. It is easy to set up, but it is not easier than a SaaS-based product. Our customers buy only its latest version.

Its price is high. Cisco needs to work on the pricing model for this product. Nutanix or VMware are cheaper products, and they provide almost the same functionality. Its price is a big road blocker when we are working with an end customer, and Nutanix and VMware are in competition. If they can reduce its price, it is actually a better choice for customers.

The OEMs from Nutanix, VMware, and Cisco have more or less the same features and functionality. The only thing that is missing in this solution is that it doesn't have a SaaS-based version. I would definitely recommend this solution for customers who are looking for an appliance-based product. Cisco HyperFlex is the best appliance-based product. It is better than Nutanix, even though Nutanix is more cost-effective than Cisco.

I would rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a seven out of ten.

The primary use was for a private cloud for the company. I used it for an ERP system and several other applications that were specialized for the company.

It improved the workflow, as it's much faster than rack servers. It saved months of work. When we implemented the system, it took two or three hours and it took us about another eight hours to move from the old system to the new system. In any other case, it would have taken a lot more time.

• The most valuable feature was the backup - it was easy to back up. 
• The system was never down.
• It was very easy to administrate and manage the system; much easier and faster.
• It was easy to install, it was up and running in minutes.
• It was easy to extend the disk capacities.

Regarding the backup, it's much easier because it's using VMware. You can do large backups without using any additional software because it backs up VMware, the whole process, at the same time.

I would have liked it to be able to back up the system to a cloud, to be able to work from any other place. If there is a data disaster, you need somewhere where the data is stored so the company can still work, especially if you have several other facilities working on the system remotely.

It's very stable. We had no issues with downtime.

With a hyperconverged system it's easy to increase whatever you need. We needed to increase our data storage several times and we increased it very easily. The scalability was very nice and we didn't need any downtime to increase the system.

We had 40 TB capacity and 20 TB availability with about 70 TB of backup. There were about 200 users. Their roles included finance, HR; almost all the departments in the organization.

Technical support was very good. When we needed anything, they were always online. They were generally responsive and helpful. We had to escalate an issue with them once and it was solved in 24 hours.

We used a special ERP system for real estate development, using SQL servers. We used Oracle servers. We used MySQL for HR servers. Those were the main three systems we were using.

We switched to Cisco because it was time to change our servers. They would have been seven years old, so we studied what the best solution to convert to would be and we found that the hyperconverged was much better for us.

The initial setup was very straightforward. There were three people involved: me and two others. One of them was responsible for backing up the old system and one was responsible for the implementation. I was mainly responsible for the overall work, managing it.

After implementation it required one person for maintenance.

We did not use consultant when deploying it.

The areas where we saw ROI were in the administration time for the servers, the lack of downtime, and increasing the capacity. On a five-year basis, the ROI was about 20 percent.

It's much more expensive than rack servers. It was an issue, but when you compare it to the number of people who were administrative assistants before, it's on the positive ROI side. It's much cheaper.

We did a comparison between Nutanix, Dell EMC, and Cisco. In the end, we decided on Cisco over Nutanix. HyperFlex was more affordable, although I think Nutanix is a little better.

My advice is go for it. I had never had experience with hyperconverged, and it was a very nice experience. I learned a lot from it. It was something completely new.

I prefer any hyperconverged system. I think it's a great system.

Our primary use case for HyperFlex is for connecting the Meraki VPN. We're working with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. We put the VPN through HyperFlex. 

This product has improved the way our organization functions in the way that we have less work. We have simple communication through the VPN and we have better confidentiality and security.

The most valuable features of this solution are the connectivity, consistency, and that we now have fewer vulnerabilities on the network.

The additional feature I would like to see included in the next release of this solution is more security. We want to add more data servers to all the hosts all over the world. We have 140 hosts that connect to one data center in Manila.

The stability works fine. 

Our scalability works well. It's fine.

The solution's technical support is good. We have a good technical team for support. 

I need to gain more knowledge about Cisco solutions that we need to apply to our system.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We used a reseller in the Philippines for the implementation. They are the only Cisco distributor in the Philippines.

We have seen ROI.

We have a 3-year contract with Cisco. The license is for three years also.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 9. After using it for a year there haven't been any issues or technicalities. 

Pick Cisco.

Our primary use case is for stretched cluster uses when the customer has multiple data centers and he won't achieve the highest level of availability. He can stretch the workload between different data centers giving him more availability when one of these data centers fails and the workload can be migrated and replicated to the other data centers. From an infrastructure level you achieve the highest availability. I am talking about 100% availability from a storage perspective.

We are providing this solution for the customer or converting the customer from a traditional environment to a hyper-converged environment which consolidates all management and support on a single port. This is the main benefit of using the hyper-converged versus the traditional.

The stretching cluster features have the highest delivery of availability from a  storage perspective. You gain all the features related to or coming from virtualization because it is based on a virtualized environment. We already implemented VMware over hyper-convergence. We took all the features coming from the virtualized or VMware environment, such as high availability, DRS and sanity rules and we can segregate the workload between two data centers using rules to maintain the workload even if one of data centers fails.

In terms of what could be improved, Cisco HyperFlex should decrease the amount of memory needed from the Controller VM that controls the physical discs. They control the discs by using the virtual VM over every ESXi host and the VM consumes memory and consumes more hardware resources. They have to improve that by decreasing the amount of required memory and CPUs to control this disc on the server. 

From a technology perspective there is no problem. The main issue is cost-wise. Cisco costs more than its competitors.

As for what I would like to see in the next release, Cisco already has a solution, but in a different profile called the CWOM, Cisco Workload Optimization Manager, and Cisco Intersight. This solution manages and optimizes workloads on the infrastructure and integrates them with the monitoring solution and gives insights and recommendations for the customers. I think it is included on solutions such as the VxRail which has the vROps, vRealize Operations Manager. Cisco did not include this on this solution, but in a separate solution. They have to have a logs server to collect all logs and give insights from all hardware. This is included in the Cisco Intersight but it is not included in the hyper-converged infrastructure solution.

I have been using Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series for six years.

I am running it now on an implementation project for hyper-converged with a HyperFlex stretched cluster. A solution from hyper-converged, but not such a standard implementation - it is stretched between different sites.

No problem with stability. I have a customer and I have not spoken to him since the last upgrade one year ago. He didn't face any problem.

Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is scalable.

I think you need one or two people maximum to operate it. They must have different technology experience from different perspectives because they deal with the virtual storage and the servers, but its concept is coming from computing and virtualization. Someone should have the knowledge of all the verticals.

Cisco support is great. But when we ask about something, they reply with the standard schema, which makes me confused. Let's say I have a problem with a customer who has a problem in their Dell or Cisco servers and I open a ticket for it. Support replies please check, check, check, check. I know! I checked all this already. I know I have to check this before calling you. This takes time. We have to go directly to our customer and try to solve the problem. Maybe sometimes our customer is solving the problem. I don't like to give them advice that is only go and check one, two, three.

The initial setup was straightforward. The advanced solution was straightforward from an implementation perspective.

There was no problem with implementation. It has improved since past versions which had many errors and many bugs.

If our pre-requisites are ready, deployment and implementation take two days maximum.

My advice to anyone considering Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series is that they have to study what the hyper-converged solution is and why they are going into hyper-convergence. Why not use the traditional way? This is the first thing. If they understand the concept, they can very easily go through the implementation because the hyper-converged solution is based on automatic implementation. We have a virtual machine capable of implementing the solution, but in the background there are many automated tasks running. If you don't know what is running in the background you didn't understand anything.

You have to understand and then go through the automated implementation related to hyper-converged. Any new solution allows you to implement everything automatically, you don't need to implement different components and then integrate them with each other. You have to configure single machine. You can implement everything from that single machine.

You have to understand why you are going to hyper-converge before you go to the implementation.

You can dig into it, but you will not understand anything. If you're facing any issue, you can't solve the problem. So when you're implementing for other companies, Cisco or Dell or whatever, they are asking about the pre-requisites. You have to have these pre-requisites before going into the implementation because when you have more information relative to the customer side or the requirements and the pre-requisites, the implementation is straightforward. But if you lack all the pre-requisites you will face many problems and you will not be able to define where they are coming from.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a nine.

Typically we use this Cisco HyperFlex cluster as our local server virtualization platform. We have all our services running in this cluster. In other words, we could say this is our local data center for all our business systems as well the core components of our IT infrastructure.

At this moment, we haven't upgraded to the latest version although Cisco has been encouraging us to upgrade, since they recently published a new version. We will schedule this change maybe next month.

I think its most valuable feature is its flexibility.

There are a lot of features that could be improved. We sorted out one critical issue left by the initial deployment team, our external partners. They made a mistake, a wrong configuration regarding the network settings. That left us a very, very painful troubleshooting process. Eventually, after four years, we sorted it out. After fixing that the system was stable. We even thought that maybe this is the root cause of those hardware failures.

In the next release, I would like to see them able to connect to the public cloud.

The first time that I started using the Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series platform was in 2016 and I'm still using it today.

Before I got the second group of this system, I would have said it was quite stable. However, with the second cluster that I received, I experienced lots of hardware issues, and almost all with the RAM stick. The memory stick had been replaced by Cisco due to some hardware failure. It was really painful, and we couldn't sort out the reason. Also we experienced some hard drive failures for which Cisco provided a replacement. So I would say it's not quite stable.

It has very high rate of hardware failure.

We have nine people using it in my department, IT. We are the key users. They rely on us for running the system. So far, it is the only system I have to run. And in recent years, it is running more stably.

Their customer service is very efficient. Usually if we experience some technical issue, we open a case and Cisco Global Support will be on within one hour. So that's very efficient.

We have our external partners to help us with the installation and configuration, and generally speaking, it's quite straightforward.

At the beginning of our project, I remember that it took about one week to set up.

There were three people involved in the system configuration and set up. One guy was in my team and another two from the external partners. They were responsible for the hands on configuration and my guy was responsible for the acceptance test and the communication between the university and the supplier.

In terms of their license, they don't actually call it a license, it's called technical support. We have to renew that after certain periods. And it's not cheap.

I would recommend Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series only in a certain situation.

Right now, considering many other external constraints, it is very hard to recommend it to people, especially if they are based in mainland China.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series a seven.