Cisco Nexus Reviews

We use the solution for the data center.

We are using the vPC and FEX. The integrations are valuable.

The pricing must be improved.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

There are no bugs or glitches. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

We have two to three users. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The deployment requires two to three months. It’s a heavy setup. Around three to four people were involved in the setup.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

We are planning to deploy Cisco ACI. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus in our data center to aggregate all the systems in our enterprise. Everyone in the company uses it indirectly, so we have 72,000 users. 

The interface is easy to use. It is not much different from iOS, but you can use it on a larger scale in data centers.

We have used Cisco Nexus for several years. 

Nexus works well. It's highly reliable. 

Cisco Nexus is scalable. 

We've contacted Cisco support many times. They always help us fast.

Nexus is straightforward. The time needed to deploy depends on what you're doing and your knowledge of Cisco systems. 

Nexus is a costly solution. However, it's an excellent device, so you expect the price to be high. It has a three-year license. 

I rate Cisco Nexus nine out of 10. I recommend it. 

The solution is our aggregation switch. We have all our data services, and users (not end-users) services going through our Nexus. It connects our firewalls and it connects other switches and makes our load balances work. Basically, we were given the switch and then we configured it and we will put it in the network and we maintain it.

The solution seems to be quite stable. We have had to upgrade recently as we were on an engineering release of code, and we don't tend to have problems with the Nexus. 

You can scale the product.

Technical support seems to be okay.

The solution could be improved in general in all aspects. 

When it comes to technical assistance, you cannot speed up things. You can try to escalate, however, there's a process. You have not got them on speed dial. You need to wait.

It would be ideal if there was better integration with various other platforms. 

I've been using the solution since 2015. It's been six years.

The stability of the solution is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable. 

The solution can scale.

The product provides services for thousands of our customers. If we look at Nexus and the media portals, then we've got millions of customers that will use the end service. That all goes through the Nexus F5.

In terms of technical support, we would go through the third party who would contact Cisco. It's fine. It works quite well at the moment. It would be nice if they could be quicker.

I did not handle any of the initial setup. I can't speak to if it was complex or straightforward. 

I can't speak to the pricing as I am not in procurement. Once it gets delivered, we'll put it in the network and then we'll configure it and then operate it. We are in operations. We don't directly handle licensing.

We are a customer and an end-user.

It's my understanding that we are using version 9, however, I cannot speak to if what we are on is the latest version or not. 

In our organization, there are hundreds of engineers. There are multiple teams. I work in a team that looks after the data center and we are on-premises, although there is also a cloud team.

From an operations perspective, when I look at service availability and the number of failures, I'd say the solution is probably about a seven out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users. It is tried and tested in our network, and it works well. It could work for other companies.

This solution is used in our data center. It is our layer-two switches that connect all of our servers to the data center firewall. Our data center is a little bit different than most in that we're only layer-two in the data center.

We have increased the throughput of our datacenter. Where before we had switches that were two, one-gig LAG uplinks, we now have eighty-gig. This means that the underlying, layer-two network is not going to be the bottleneck of our data center anymore. It's going to be the other peripherals like our F5 and our Palo Alto that need to be upgraded to provide more throughput.

We leverage Cisco DCNM a lot, which allows us to automate. We're working toward allowing the server administrators to configure their own ports for their new servers that they're spinning up in the data center.

Our only complaint is about the licensing because it can always be a little more cost-effective.

The scalability of this solution is great. We couldn't afford to buy the ASIC solution, so we bought the Nexus 9Ks and put them in a Spine-and-Leaf topology. We then made each of the leaves their own vPC peers as well, so it allows us to have redundancy between servers.

Our local Cisco engineer was amazing during the whole process. He assisted us many times when installing and configuring the system. He also gave us advice on DCNM and how to set it up.

We've opened one tech case where we had to replace a switch because we believed there was a port that was bad. We had the new switch within one business day, so technical support has been awesome. 

We had Cisco switches in our data center that were reaching their end-of-life in a few years. We also had other vendor switches that were coming up on end-of-life, and we as a team, with our manager, decided that we wanted a one-vendor solution. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier because we wouldn't be opening up multiple tech cases to solve problems. Cisco provided the best solution for us.

The initial setup of this solution was only complex because we didn't have Nexus switches in our data center. We had a multi-vendor data center and the Cisco switches that we did have in there were the Catalyst series. So, it was only complex for us because we were learning a new platform. After we got through the learning phase, it was very simple and easy to set up.

We handled the implementation in-house and asked our local Cisco engineer for help when needed.

We have a three-year subscription for our licensing fees. For us, this product is perfect for what we need and it came at the perfect price point.

Arista and Juniper were both on the shortlist. We bought a few Juniper QFX series switches, and we did not like the product at all. We were investigating Arista, but Cisco came in with an awesome pricing plan for us, and a data center solution that met our needs. It was a lot cheaper than Arista, which is why our manager went with that selection.

This product has absolutely surpassed our expectation of throughput. The network team used to be blamed for slowness in the data center, but now we can confidently say that it has nothing to do with us. We're providing the organization with eighty-gigs of throughput in all directions to the firewalls. Troubleshooting poorly-performing applications is easier now because we can say that the bottleneck is not in the data center. 

We could be doing much more with our Nexus 9K switches, but they are not doing as much as they are capable of because we only have layer-two in our data center. This is the way our data center was set up and how the executive team wants it to be run. In larger data centers and larger companies, they're using the full capabilities.

My recommendation for anybody who is researching this solution is to ask for a demonstration from your local Cisco support. We had an awesome support engineer who did a demo with us. He brought in four switches and set up DCNM. We got to see the benefits of how DCNM would help us. We're transitioning to more automation because we have fewer people than we did, so the DCNM product is awesome. It used to be a twenty or thirty-minute process to add a VLAN in our data center, and now it takes approximately three minutes. The Cisco DCNM and the 9K switches were the beginning, to show what we can start doing as a network team to leverage the technology that we have.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus is for a VXLAN environment with some video multicast.

I don't think we've been using Cisco Nexus long enough to know accurately how it is improving our organization. Our first deployment was about a month ago.

The most valuable features of Cisco Nexus are the performance, flexibility, configuration, and cost. It's not a traditional pricing model from Cisco. They've offered our company a considerable reduction in price. That makes Cisco Nexus now very competitive with other vendors.

One improvement needed is support for Multi-CAD scale that we were concerned about. We're not hitting any limits at this point. There were concerns about the amount of server capacity that was going to be available. We like to see things that are already there as opposed to being told where they will be. 

The stability of Cisco Nexus thus far has been excellent. We had some initial issues with some non-Cisco optics, third parties claiming compatibility when they weren't compatible.

We've not had a scale-out yet. Cisco Nexus looks very valuable. We're starting to deploy them in other environments as well.

Cisco technical support for the 9000 is good. During our issues, we had excellent technical support. The support issues required around 40 hours. We had Cisco engineers available for the entire time. It was impressive.

In the production of our network, we've grown in scale, and that's really what it came down to. Previously we wouldn't have thought that a Nexus product was comparable to some of the other vendors, like Arista and Juniper. But the features of the 9000 brought it into line with the capabilities of other vendors that we used.

The setup is straightforward. Nexus uses options that our engineers are familiar with. The advantages were that we could leverage the knowledge that we already had.

On a scale of 1-10, I would rate it a 9. Cisco is very competitive with the other companies that are out there. I would recommend them. We've had very good luck.

Cisco is a leader. They help us with the deployment at a lower cost.

Cisco Nexus introduced VDC, Virtual Device Context, meaning the person has a single physical box, usually one pair, for dynamic purposes. This pair allows one to create multiple logical switches, for totally different functioning. One could be for production, another for UAT, a third for Dev. Yet, we are talking about a physically single box. It has also introduced VPC, Virtual Port Channel, which allows for more redundancy and flexibility.

Cisco Nexus if focused primarily on the data center. While it has been in the market for nearly ten years, there are still many areas in need of improvement. There may be many bugs which remain unresolved. It is important for Cisco to be aware of the various issues it encounters and come up with new releases. 

The frequency with which this occurs can vary. It may take months, be done quarterly or, sometimes, after half a year has elapsed. There is still much to be done to increase their stability, something which can depend. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We have been dealing with Cisco Nexus since it first emerged around ten years ago. 

While this can depend, there is still much to be done to improve the solution's stability. 

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

Nexus, which uses NX-OS, runs on a different operating system than CatOS, which means that the latter tends to run on OS - just like a Cisco router - only with the functioning being a bit different. While NX-OS is very different, even when it comes to the command line, most things are the same.

However, NX-OS already introduced a different concept, which is more like a carrier level. They have a dedicated command management module. All other modules have comparatively many more functions or power than regular Catalyst switches.

Nexus' primary focus is on the data center and supports what are known as top-of-rack or end-of-rack features, including the cost of cabling. So too, the latest one, the Nexus 9K, also supports a software-defined cloud with Cisco ACI, which is what this is referred to when typically deployed inside the company.

The solution is relatively expensive when compared with Cisco Catalyst.

We are talking about a network portion. Catalyst and Nexus switches are all part of the network domain.

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten, as it is a new platform. 

We really lag on the AC infrastructure where the configuration and the changes make a difference in terms of troubleshooting.

The product improves us when we see an expert and L1/L2 engineers for support. We have a dependency there. A simple configuration makes a big difference. It can create more chaos inside the network. We need to make sure when we make changes in one platform and it impacts other platforms, that the technical problems don't reach the end users.

There should be better certifications. More training should be provided before we get into this product.

We are just migrating to Cisco Nexus as a newer product. We are looking for similar features in Arista. We are closing the gap from Cisco ASA to an Arista ASA environment. This gives us a very stable network when compared to Cisco.

I get very good support from Cisco. The response was very fast when compared to other vendors. 

I advise anyone to invest in a new solution because we do a periodic refresh every three years. For any product we buy, we ensure it is in the warranty and it is the leader in the market. 

We go through the Gartner studies to understand the leaders in the market. Then, we get the solutions from the partners and go over them. We do a case study with the other competitive companies on the product they use and their experience with it.

The setup was very easy, but managing it in operations was very complex. The VLANs are different. We have a network outside and inside of the ASA infrastructure.

It is not possible to provide privileged access to L1 or L2 engineers. If you provide L3 access, there is a chance that they mess up the network by making smaller changes that you don't want. 

We implemented Cisco Nexus through a consultant.

Another option was Aruba Networks.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 6 or 5. The reason is that we are into Cisco for a long time. They have been very good supporters since we began the network environment.

For any technology on the education part, for the training and decisions, there are more resources available than when compared to other partner products. Planning technology through Cisco for our training sessions and getting it implemented with other products is what we do now.

Currently, we are assessing the leaders in the market for the data-container environment and SD-WAN solutions. VeloCloud was suggested by colleagues of neighbor companies.

I do not know which version we are using. 

The solution has good stability, so the technical team, the people handling the data center, are very comfortable with it and can push some policies as per the applications. So, I feel the solution to be okay. It really supports the management perspective. While it may not add value for the users, it enables the administrators to work freely. I am referring to the port network switches. 

The solution could be more user-friendly. 

It should have a more lenient cost. It could be cheaper in general. 

The installation process lasted too long, taking 16 to 24 hours for full completion. It should be faster. 

We have been using Cisco Nexus for two years.

The solution is sufficiently stable. 

I feel the solution to be sufficiently scalable. 

Tech support is good. There is no need for it to be improved. 

Installation is unduly long, with the entire process lasting 16 to 24 hours. 

We have around ten people managing these devices, consisting of managers, administrators and engineers. 

The solution should be more cost-effective in general. There is an annual licensing fee. 

The same 9,000 people connect daily to these applications in our data center.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others. 

I rate Cisco Nexus as an eight out of ten.