- Ease of use in terms of setup
- No need for configuration
- High Availability
- Profile copying
- One system can go down and the other is still fully functional, so you have redundancy
- Removes a lot of administrative hassle
It’s reduced, by about 50%, our administration time in terms of server maintenance. We have the ability to withstand an outage that we didn’t have before.
I would like to see, now that HP has acquired Aruba, all my HP devices connected.
I’ve used it for almost two years, we deployed our first system in Feb. 2014 and second in July 2014.
No issues encountered.
We have been extremely stable. That is the reason we placed these servers in our environment. We decided to go with HP because of cost, stability and ease of use, and we have been able to hire over a hundred people a year due to the stability within the organization.
No issues with scalability.
We were using IBM and they were horrible.
It was very straightforward, seamless and very easy. My team did not have a lot of experience, and within a day they were experts. They were able to figure out the system and deploy.
We did it in-house.
I would say it’s a considerable amount of dollars, we lose about $160,000 a day when we're down, and with the amount of time of downtime we’ve had being so little, we’ve saved a good deal of money.
It wasn’t expensive, and the purchase of the equipment was not bad at all. The total investment was under half a million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve gained.
We looked at a ton of other options, some within HP, and some from Cisco. The HP Blades made the most sense for what we were getting.
Understand your environment, and make sure it’s the right fit for you. You know the uptime you need, the type of compute you need, and a formal understanding of 'do we have what we need in the data center to push this.' This may not be the right solution for everyone, but know your business and whether this solution is applicable to you.