Cisco Nexus Reviews

The primary use case is for the core network infrastructure of our data centers. We use Nexus and the FEX line of products to interconnect all of the server infrastructure, as well as external connections that come in from our outside vendors. 

This solution streamlines how we have to configure things because we can do everything from one device, whereas if we had individual devices we would have to go to each one and configure them manually.

The most valuable features are the flexibility of the blade infrastructure, as well as the FEX integration.

I would love to see Active/Active FEX connectivity, which is enhanced vPC, where we could also do a vPC from a server in that type of configuration. It's still a limitation that's been carried over from the 7K that I'm surprised is still absent from the 9K. Including this would give us the highest level of redundancy without risking having orphaned ports, which we do have at times.

At this point, I am happy with the stability of this solution. It has been better than the 7K line.

The scalability seems pretty solid. We're not a very large company, so we don't max out any of the limitations of the solution.

I have not dealt directly with technical support, although I have received feedback from my engineers. What little support we've needed has worked out very well.

I have nearly ten years of experience with the Nexus 7K line. Our change was primarily driven by the company's requirement to maintain our equipment. With the 7K line going out of support shortly, we had to move to a supported platform to meet regulatory requirements.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. The similarities between the 9K and the older 7K helped with the transition. It didn't complicate things because the functionalities are so similar that it was easy enough to transfer our current configuration over. We were even able to make slight adjustments for improvement.

We used CompuNet to assist us with the implementation.

The engineer was great, but the project manager wasn't so great. He didn't really manage the project. I came in late, in the middle of the project, and ended up putting it on hold because there was no plan. They were trying to implement within a couple of weeks. So, I had to put it on hold for about three months before we actually were able to move our core over to the new 9K infrastructure.

With the implementation of the FEX infrastructure, it is going to save us a lot of time. We are incapable of implementing new connectivity for new hardware devices without having the ability to manage multiple devices.

Besides, the ROI for this solution is that it gets me off of the audit list.

We only have a yearly support contract, as we do not use any of the subscription-based functions at this time.

We only evaluated solutions by Cisco.

With the feature set we are using now, I cannot think of any major changes that we would require. In the future, as we move into a hybrid cloud strategy, I may see opportunities for improvement.

There are still limitations within the product.

My advice for anybody researching this solution is to make sure that it meets your requirements. From a stability standpoint, it works, but not every feature set that you may need or require is there, so you have to look at it closely.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution is used as a switch in our data center.

This solution has made our environment more modular.

The most valuable feature is its reliability.

The technical support for this solution needs to be improved.

This solution is pretty good with respect to stability.

Technical support is not very good.

Prior to using this solution, we used Avaya switches. We experienced some hardware failures so we wanted to get a more reliable product. This is why we changed to the Cisco Nexus line. We also wanted more modularity, because when a part failed with our previous solution, you had to replace the whole switch.

The initial setup for this solution is a bit complex. Not just anybody without the technical know-how can set it up.

We had a specialist from Cisco Professional Services assist us with the implementation. Their service was all right.

The return on investment has been pretty good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

In my previous company, we relied on this solution as a part of the data center core switch. Everything inside the data center was connected through this unit.

This solution has helped the data center in the bank's infrastructure to expand over the past ten years. Both the reliability and scalability of this solution helped to support this growth.

The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and reliability.

Scalability is important as the business moves forward. As the number of bank branches grows, the traffic grows. You need to rely on a solid Cisco product in the data center to support this.

Enhancing the software-defined level of this solution would empower it.

While I am not a technical person, I can comment on this solution's stability from a management perspective because I keep my eyes on the incidents. I have to look at all of the incidents that are reported through the data center. I can't remember having any incident raised regarding this product.

From this perspective, I can say that stability is good.

This solution is quite scalable, although this product comes in different families including an enterprise-level version and a mid-level version. Scalability depends on how the switch has been configured and the technical specifications that are related to it.

Technical support is part of Cisco's overall goodwill.

The support level is good and it is reliable, as well. It is also quite convenient for us as a financial institution.

The choice to move to this solution was based on our business strategy. It is a top-down approach, where the business strategy is passed down and the technical architecture is evaluated. After this is complete, a decision is made to either invest in a new solution or continue to rely on the old one.

In our case, this was the solution that we needed to accommodate our business strategy.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

Something like this always goes through a pre-planning stage. Kicking off the project requires that all of the prerequisites are in place. All of the information is gathered and the final scope is identified. This can be something that is straightforward or very complex.

In the bank that I have been working with, we were building the infrastructure from scratch. This is the reason it has been a straightforward project, rather than a complex one.

We had a very reliable Cisco partner implement this solution for us. Their name is Raya Integration, and they are one of the dominant Cisco partners across Egypt.

We considered both Cisco and Juniper for our infrastructure. My experience with Cisco over the past twenty years has been good. Also, this specific product is both reliable and scalable, which were all things that we considered when we adopted this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Cisco Nexus could also have better documentation.

Moreover, it would be nice if the solution offered multiple types of port support. It does not have, for example, a single switch for both internet and fiber ports. 

I have been using Cisco Nexus for around 10 years.

The solution has demonstrated stability thus far. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is fine.

For Cisco, we use Nexus and 2900.

The initial setup is easy.

As I deal with the technical aspects of the solution, I am not in a position to comment on the price. 

We consider Juniper switches to be more affordable.

I use the solution in my own company. It works.

There are around 500-plus devices being utilized in our organization. 

My advice to others is that they get initial hands-on experience in a lab environment. This should involve a proper grasp of the solution's features, such as that which concerns troubleshooting and may involve a different setup. Only at this point should one enter the production stage. 

I rate Cisco Nexus as a seven out of ten. 

We use Cisco Nexus for the switches. It's a switch product, and I think we have 350 users on our network.

It's easy to use, and the performance is great. I like the VRF IP route for the network. It's five minutes of work. 

The price could be better. 

I've been using Cisco Nexus for the last three years.

Cisco Nexus is stable, and the performance is great.

Cisco Nexus is a scalable product.

I have contacted technical support many times, and I am satisfied with my experience.

The installations were easy. The time to deploy depends on the model and the size of the product you will be using. But it will definitely take hours. We have ten people in our team to implement and maintain this solution. But it depends on the project. Sometimes we will have 15 people working on it.

We implemented this solution by ourselves.

The problem with Cisco, from what I see, is that their costs are much higher. The costs depend on the features you need, and the license is expensive.

From a functional and technical point of view, I would recommend Cisco Nexus to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Nexus a nine.

I am an engineer and work primarily with our data center network and data center security. The Nexus switch is a data center switch and I have a lot of recent experience with it. My company is a solution provider and this is one of the products that we sell to our clients.

The 9000 series works really well in the spine-and-leaf architecture and gives you capabilities up to 400 gig.

The most valuable feature is performance. Not many customers are using the 400 gig speed yet, but you do have flexibility as if you're going to run the ports at 10 gig, 40 gig, or 100 gig. That port flexibility is really important.

There is an ongoing problem with the limitation of the TCAM table, which is that it doesn't have enough memory to allow you to be really granular with your policy. Without enough memory, it requires manual manipulation if you exceed or get near to the TCAM limits. They have improved it, but in the early days, it took down some companies.

I have been using Cisco products for many years and have experience with the Nexus line since it was first released.

These switches are very stable.

The spine-and-leaf architecture is very scalable. If you need more ports to plug servers in, you add more leaves. If you need more throughput then you add more spines.

All of the switches at the top are the spine, and those plug into those are the leaves, and then the servers plug into the leaves. It's highly scalable, because if you have more servers then just purchase two more switches. If you need more throughput and better performance, then you just purchase two switches for the spine. You can continue to scale out the model very simply.

The Nexus 9000 platform is by far the best-selling and most popular, and there are a couple of reasons for that. It's less expensive than a 7K or 5K solution and in fact, we hardly sell the 5Ks anymore. The 9000 really works well in the spine-and-leaf, which is the current architecture.

The initial setup is really straightforward and if you use ACI, running on top of the Nexus 9K, you don't really have to do anything but plug the switches in. The software manages all of the policy.

Without ACI, setup requires the use of the command line, which is the same as it's always been.

The maintenance can be handled by one person or a small team.

The Nexus 9000 is very competitively priced. 

The Nexus Dashboard is a relatively new product that is in the portfolio for the data center. It hosts the multi-site orchestrator and has functionality for self-healing and self-optimizing of the data center network. It's Nexus' best work.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that if you're looking to cut costs in the data center, there's not that big of a difference between a Cisco switch and other switches. But, when it comes to things like storage, between the most expensive and the least expensive, there's a lot of different pricing in there. So, I wouldn't cut costs on your switches. I would suggest looking at other areas where you can cut costs.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is as headend switches at remote sites.

These are the same as the old headend switches, but newer and nicer.

The most valuable feature is the Bluetooth console.

They need to offer fibre switches in the 9K series.

I would like to have the ability to identify ports by flashing port lights, so I can tell the user "We need to look at port four", and then I can flash the light remotely using the command line.

The stability of this solution is good.

Scalability with this solution is easy.

Technical support for this solution is good.

We moved to this solution because it is an ever-growing field. You need to stay ahead, and uptime is crucial.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We used AT&T to assist us with the implementation.

AT&T is our primary vendor. Verizon was on the short list, and Cisco themselves was on the list as well.

This is a good switch, overall, and there are only a few other features that we'd like to see.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The product is easy to use. 

There is room for improvement in the pricing. The solution is expensive. Compared to other vendors, it's costly for similar products.

I have been using this solution for five to six years. 

The product is stable. It's a good product. 

We get technical support through a third-party vendor. So, we normally call the vendor, and then we need to escalate the issue.

The initial setup is easy. For the current setup, we're just dealing with updates already.

Overall, we are satisfied with this solution. We don't have any complaints. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.