In the GreenLake portal, I would really like to see more granularity in the costing model. That's the one limitation that we do have: We have a lot of departments. We want to be able to break down, in a granular way, that this department is using X amount of resources, that department is using Y amount of resources. Currently, it just looks at the platform as a whole, from a hardware perspective only. I would like to see virtual machines. I want to know we're using this many virtual machines and they're using that percentage of the resources. I want to be able to tag it and say, "This is this department's fees, this is that department's fees." That way I could charge back internally to my own departments. I need to be able to cross-charge. Just charging me, the customer, doesn't work well. It's almost never is it going to be a single customer who's actually using it. When it's IT, we're distributing it out to a lot of people, and we need to be able to pick out and show that, all the way back to the units. That way, we could really justify why they should give us an extra $10,000 a month.
I feel like I'm paying for 20 percent that I'm not using, because it's always over-provisioned by at least 20 percent or a minimum commit of 80 percent. Once you get up above that, you're looking at provisioning more and then that increases it again. I would like some flexibility on pricing at those lower bands, and not having such a high commit-percentage, if that's economically feasible. There is room for improvement in the ability to scale down without a significant increase in cost. Fulfillment of the hardware in a more timely manner is also an issue.
Head of Technical Services at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2019-06-25T06:39:00Z
Jun 25, 2019
It offers flexibility in IT operations, but it hasn't done it yet. We should see this in the future. We are still managing the VMs in our IT operations.
Part of the integration, with cutting things over to Unisys, may have hurt us a bit. We had a couple of rough implementations earlier this year. Part of that was due to some internal system changes on HPE's side. We are keeping an eye on this to make sure it doesn't happen again. It was dealt with and cleaned up when brought to the attention of our account team. From what I heard in the keynote address today, it sounds like they are expanding it to Aruba and pretty much any HPE product. Based on what we need, that would be able to cover the whole range.
I'd like to see better reporting and monitoring of growth so we can better detect where the needs are for scaling. Also, I'd like to see more analysis so we can see where our company is growing and use that to make future plans.
Flexible Capacity from HPE Pointnext offers on-demand capacity, combining the agility and economics of public cloud with the security and performance of on-premises IT. With advanced metering, customers pay monthly for actual capacity used, above a minimum commitment – by core, by terabyte, by virtual machine – with no up-front capital outlay. HPE provides a buffer of capacity on-premises and ready for use, which you pay for only when you start to use. Active capacity management ensures...
In the GreenLake portal, I would really like to see more granularity in the costing model. That's the one limitation that we do have: We have a lot of departments. We want to be able to break down, in a granular way, that this department is using X amount of resources, that department is using Y amount of resources. Currently, it just looks at the platform as a whole, from a hardware perspective only. I would like to see virtual machines. I want to know we're using this many virtual machines and they're using that percentage of the resources. I want to be able to tag it and say, "This is this department's fees, this is that department's fees." That way I could charge back internally to my own departments. I need to be able to cross-charge. Just charging me, the customer, doesn't work well. It's almost never is it going to be a single customer who's actually using it. When it's IT, we're distributing it out to a lot of people, and we need to be able to pick out and show that, all the way back to the units. That way, we could really justify why they should give us an extra $10,000 a month.
The time to receive a price when I am going to a proposal is too long.
I feel like I'm paying for 20 percent that I'm not using, because it's always over-provisioned by at least 20 percent or a minimum commit of 80 percent. Once you get up above that, you're looking at provisioning more and then that increases it again. I would like some flexibility on pricing at those lower bands, and not having such a high commit-percentage, if that's economically feasible. There is room for improvement in the ability to scale down without a significant increase in cost. Fulfillment of the hardware in a more timely manner is also an issue.
It offers flexibility in IT operations, but it hasn't done it yet. We should see this in the future. We are still managing the VMs in our IT operations.
I would like to have more detail in the monitoring.
Part of the integration, with cutting things over to Unisys, may have hurt us a bit. We had a couple of rough implementations earlier this year. Part of that was due to some internal system changes on HPE's side. We are keeping an eye on this to make sure it doesn't happen again. It was dealt with and cleaned up when brought to the attention of our account team. From what I heard in the keynote address today, it sounds like they are expanding it to Aruba and pretty much any HPE product. Based on what we need, that would be able to cover the whole range.
I'd like to see better reporting and monitoring of growth so we can better detect where the needs are for scaling. Also, I'd like to see more analysis so we can see where our company is growing and use that to make future plans.