As part of our evaluation phase, we researched three vendors. Each was assessed using a scorecard to rate each in terms of functionality as it related to our environment. The scale was from one to five.

We compared it with HP C7000 series blade infrastructure but the Cisco B-Series cost that was presented to us and the comparison of performance details were superior.

We looked at other considerations, such as BladeSystem from HPE and standalone server stacks, at least five years ago when we purchased the original set of Vblocks.

It was the only integrated system that fit our needs. It filled the requirement for new computing power, an updated network, and SAN storage. It also filled the expansion possibilities of a data center in a box with almost one point of contact for support.

Before choosing we also evaluated HPE, Dell, and IBM. We all found that, aside from the physical differences, they had the same architecture and OpEx; external management; local switch infrastructure in each chassis; complex routing rules when scaling domains; and challenges in provisioning new units. Once we learned the "UCS Way," we were more efficient.

The solution is a little more complicated compared to HP and PowerEdge configurations. Also, its KVM manager could be more straightforward similar to other vendors.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

As stated earlier, we had HP. As a marquis client they fought hard on equipment price to maintain their position. However, the decision was based on OpEx, which greatly favored UCS. Once we had a few systems in place and people trained up on their use, it was not long before HP was displaced. Because both the IBM and Dell management architectures were quite similar, we looked and got a few quotes, but did not see anything to justify further evaluation resources.

We have been evaluating Cisco HyperFlex which we will be upgrading soon. I compared the two on itcentralstation.com and downloaded the reports, it is better. There is a current need to choose this upgrade and my team will get on it soon.

• Dell
• HP

We also evaluated:
- Dell
- HP
- IBM

HP and IBM

No but we have used HP for a number of years and IBM before that.

We still have multiple vendors that we work with. It depends on the customer requirements whom we select to work with.

We work with this solution because we find that the technology is superior to others.

We have also evaluated Dell EMC blade and rack servers, along with Cisco rack servers.

I have evaluated dozens of server solutions (Dell PowerEdge, IBM X series and HPE ProLiant) and many, many more.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options, but in the convergence market, UCS should be evaluated as a clear option to evaluate.

We also looked into HP servers, but decided that Cisco was better in most areas. Combined with Nexus switches, it provides us with a versatile solution for a virtual platform including SAN fabric capability build in, networking flexibility and SDN, and is better to management.

No, Cisco UCS was the stuff we wanted.

Yes, we give options to the customers and go for this upon their choice.

We also evaluated Fujitsu products.

Before we had to look for other options, but now we just check the different versions of the product checking the features.