Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers Reviews

We use VMware hypervisor on Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers. We use the PowerEdge storage with iSCSI.

We use these servers for the hypervisor, and we have many Windows servers on them. They work very well, and they have a very good performance.

The performance of Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers is very good. 

They are easy to configure. It is simple to work with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers.

I have been working with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers for two years.

They are very stable.

We use Dell support for notebooks, servers, and storage. Overall, I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We only use Dell servers. We build the hypervisor servers for the company, and these are the only servers we use.

I would rate Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers a ten out of ten. They are very good. I am happy with them.

Our setup is only for single storage with Dell servers R620 and R630. We have 10 servers and we have deployed the ESXi on each one, with multiple VMs on each server.

This solution is being used for testing purposes. We are testing for our clients that require any builder deployment. When our project is over, then we will restart this VM.

What we like the most is the stability. Without shutdowns, our VMs and servers are up and running fine.

The backup and the requirement of the DR site is valuable.

All of the servers are in cluster mode and when PowerEdge Server is down, others are affected.

It doesn't automatically upgrade the firmware. We have to manually process it because we have forgotten about the firmware and virus updates.

We would like to see the upgrades done automatically. In future releases, automation would be required.

We have been working with Dell EMC PowerEdge Rack Server for approximately five to six years.

It's a very stable solution.

Scalability could be improved.

Technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. It was easy.

This is a server that I would recommend to others.

I would rate Dell EMC PowerEdge Rack Servers a nine out of ten.

Virtual Environment and performance enhancements for SQL applications and for future VDI implementations.

Performance has been observed once servers have been operational and power consumption has been reduced as well due to the new technology.

The solution has always had very good performance.

The availability/scalability is excellent.

Their technical support is always helpful. They have a very good support timeline that lasts not just a year or two, but even five years down the line. It's a long-term arrangement.

The solution is highly scalable, with a two-socket server, CPU support, and the M.E.N SST. 

It can support VDI.

You can combine these servers. Therefore, not only do they work with virtual environments, you can have them as a Data Analytics server. They can handle a lot of heavy processes. They are one of the main big servers that can handle a lot of things. For example, I'm replacing four servers with three servers, which means I can also reduce the licenses. Instead of buying two licenses, you're buying one license. The lines are reduced to half, and you have a few open managed application that will tell you the health of the server. 

The content and insights with Dell are great. Whenever something happens to your server and you have the support, they will give you a notification. Whether it's CPU or RAM or the power supply, whatever the issue, they will tell you. You always have a proactive notification on all the servers.

Security and BIOS are very good. Previously, BIOS was just a plus for the team to have on the server. Now, BIOS is more into Cyber Security and has the intelligence to recognize what is being loaded before going to the main OS. There's artificial intelligence integrated into these servers and the insights are one of the main reasons that they'll provide you with a good service, and offer you some visibility on the server. You feel safe. The server won't let you down. With the notifications, you can always handle things before they become a bigger problem. 

The company needs to invest in more marketing exposure. Users need to know that Dell servers compete with HP Servers. in the region, the Middle East, many more companies work with HP. They could change this.

The solution could still use some more analytics.

It would be helpful if we had the power of an open managed application. It should be more hands-on in terms of how are you going to manage your server. In order to do that, you need more visibility into the health of the server itself.

I've been dealing with this solution for around a year. I used to have HP servers, as well, however, now I'm working with Dell again.

The solution is extremely scalable, and it's easy to do so as it has a two-socket server and CPU support, etc. It offers quite high performance for easy scaling down the road.

You don't just buy a server for one service. You buy a server to take advantage of several services in your environment, and so, it helps that it can scale.

I've personally never worked with technical support directly, however, it is my understanding that technical support is excellent. They offer long timelines, so you don't just have technical support for, for example, the first year or two. They continue to work with you even years down the line. They're very fast and responsive and their head in Lebanon is very good. 

Support is one of the main reasons we considered as well, as we know that if we have any critical issues, we won't have problems getting the answers we need. We get the answers we require either the same day or 24 hours. It's great.

We did use a different solution, HP, and now we are returning to Dell. Part of what played a major factor is the support for AMD CPU's. Since Dell EMC supports the AMD, there also were internal considerations as well to take them on.

HP is one of the main competitors in the Middle East. They compete head-to-head with Dell EMC also, and HP servers have some things that are better than Dell EMC. Dell has older technology. They're catching up, however, with artificial intelligence, analytics, and reporting, they're catching up.

They are pretty close in style and substance. Therefore, whichever gives me a better price will be the one I choose.

The initial setup was very, very easy. 

There's nothing to work with on the server itself. 

You just handle the configuration, and you do some EFI configuration. In the last stage, you're going to install the operating system so that it is a fast service. It depends on the disks you put in. At the server level, so it doesn't have that much configuration. It's just installing Windows and any operating system. Then you build over that.

Except for the Bios updates and the drivers and the compatibility issues, you don't have any problem with compatibility.

There are certain components on other solutions that I need to check with Dell. Dell was very good before and always is in the performance, availability and support. That said, our region in Lebanon, had some problems with the distributors and the people who are licensed to sell Dell products. It's been about five years now, and it's now official that everybody can partner again with Dell. You don't have to be an experienced partner, per se. 

Before, it was being controlled by one partner. Nobody is able to bring in Dell, and this partner had control for all the prices of all the support and everything. However, after merging with EMC and after having so many partners, its become more exposed to the market. Many partners that were struggling to sell Dell EMC servers and storage, as well as laptops and everything, are able to do so. 

This is the main reason why we have returned to Dell. We know about them. They offer very good servers and they are one of the leaders in the market. Dell and HP are leaders now in the servers. For this season, we reconsidered having their Rack Servers. This is the only reason we're going now to Dell servers. 

With Dell, if a company is considering their work environments and they're considering Data Analytics and Big Data, etc., yes, why not to go for the Dell server. They have an extremely scalable infrastructure designed for Big Data and they have the processes and ERP system that needs a lot of power. The Rack Servers, the PowerUp servers, are very good. They are recommended by many people worldwide.

I'd recommend organizations consider these servers. Dell also has a full portfolio of products that work together in harmony. Whatever you need, Dell likely has a solution for you.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

• OpenManage Essentials: Loading new firmware is easy, either via OpenManage Essentials, OMIVV, or the iDRAC. It’s just so easy.
• OpenManage Essentials facilitates the build of a desired template (including disk configuration) and pushing this out to multiple hosts at once. This greatly speeds up our deployment times.
• iDRAC 8: Being able to provision and manage RAID virtual disks from the iDRAC is a huge bonus. You don’t have to boot the machine via the console to do this.
• The firmware rollback is great. The iDRAC can store previous versions to make this very quick.

• iDRAC 8 allows you to configure so much of the server without having to use a console. For example, RAID configuration, disk health, and SSD wear.
• It also displays a great amount of environmental history, including temps and power usage, with up to a year of history stored in the iDRAC.
• The vFlash capability is handy, allowing multiple SD partitions to be created and mounted. Being able to load all kinds of firmware via iDRAC is great, e.g., disk, controller, BIOS.
• OpenManage Essentials is better than OneView in my opinion. While it lacks the visual finesse of OneView, it has far more functionality.

OpenManage Essentials could do with a visual “birthday” as it still requires the Silverlight plugin.

OpenManage for vCenter integration is powerful, but also a little buggy. Hardware-wise, they are great. I much prefer the iDRAC architecture over HPE iLO.

We have used the solution for about nine months.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

So far, the technical support has been very good. The self-service portal for requesting replacement parts is extremely easy to use and it is fast.

For technical support tickets, the experience isn’t quite as good. There were some delays in communication.

We used HPE ProLiant. We switched due to significant cost savings in capex as well as operational improvements.

For example, having OpenManage Essentials is better than OneView, at least for rack servers.

The setup was extremely simple.

iDRAC is easier to configure, with the front LCD panel, on the non-XD models, being very handy.

The NFC option for the front bezel combined with the mobile app is great for on-site troubleshooting.

For a small, extra cost, you can get OpenManage Essentials with configuration management. This allows you to deploy pre-configured hardware templates making mass deployment easy.

DELL is typically much cheaper that HPE, for example. Their licensing is far more transparent and simple.

iDRAC licensing is significantly cheaper. Extended support costs are also lower.

We evaluated HPE ProLiant.

It is a great product. Just be mindful of some of the current bugs in OpenManage and OpenManage Integration for vCenter. Other than these, we’ve had a great experience.

All of my server's requirements are currently using the Dell EMC PowerEdge Rack Servers.

There are certain aspects, features, and functionality on the motherboard that need improvement. 

If they had some software components that would have helped because I don't like creating electronic waste. We don't like upgrading for the sake of upgrading.

With that process, we tend to lose the newer features which would have come in during that time.

If they could have done something during that time where the new features could have been included, or improved upon the existing ones then it would have been brilliant.

In the next release, I would like to see some means by which they could improve the functionality on the motherboard. It would be a very large help and increase the life of these products.

I have been using Dell EMC PowerEdge Rack Servers for 14 to 15 years.

We are using the latest version purchased from HP.

It's a very stable solution. 

We have many servers still running with this solution because our new one has not yet been commissioned. 

We have the exchange server, ERP that is running on it, file sense servers, and the security server is running.

We plan to continue using this solution in the future.

Dell EMC PowerEdge Rack Servers is scalable.

We have 160 users in our organization.

Technical support has been brilliant. 

They have supported us for several years, but it's now out of support because we are currently implementing a hardware refresh.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment time varies depending on the application being deployed. For example, the exchange took me a couple of days to get it up and running, and on a straightforward file sense server, it was less than three hours to get it up and running.

The security server also took a couple of hours to get it up and running.

We have four members to deploy and maintain this solution. They are made up of engineers, managers, and admins.

It's not a very expensive solution.

We were in a scenario of having every application running on physical servers.

We are now moving to an in-house virtual environment. We are using VMware so that one server can do a multitude of jobs at the same time. Hence the hardware refresh.

We are moving towards virtual experiences, using VMware.

This solution has absolutely fulfilled our needs well.

We are still running, this solution, we are upgrading only because of the features and abilities that it doesn't have. It's run now for 14 to 15 years.

It's a brilliant product.

I would recommend this solution to others looking into using this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The user interface is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The implementation process is quite good.

The pricing of the solution is fair.

I can't think of any features that are lacking on the solution. It works well for our clients for the most part.

It would be nice if the rack servers had an HCI solution as an option.

We've been using the solution for the past two years now.

The stability is good. It also lasts a relatively long time. Our customers are typically looking for something that will hold up for about five years, and this solution does that. It's not buggy. There aren't glitches. It doesn't crash or break down.

You can easily scale the solution up and down. Our customers want a solution that can work with for half a decade at least, so they need something flexible, and this solution delivers.

We deal with customers of all sizes, from small to large organizations. This solution works well for each of them.

The technical support is okay. We have an internal team, however, they are by no means experts. We need Dell to fill in the blanks and sometimes that can't help us the way we hoped they would. It might be helpful if the Dell site had more information so that we could just go there.

We use a variety of Dell options including FX and XE, among others. Which we use is dependant on the client requirements.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite easy to set everything up, in fact. All of the underlying technology is the same on Dell, so we don't have an issue handling the implementation on the Dell servers for our customers.

We can handle the aspects of the installation ourselves, as it's pretty straightforward.

We are a service provider and a reseller. We use various versions of the solution. The deployment models also vary as it depends on customer requirements. We deal with a lot of hyper-converged solutions.

I'd recommend the solution. We've had no issues with it at all.

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

These servers have been real work-horses. Dell has done a nice job at including more management tools, with OpenManage and the likes. The DRAC Enterprise is an amazing feature, especially when managing decentralized server farms.

One of the main factors in helping efficacy is having like-branded servers, which have compatible tools. There are are more universal management tools out there, but they are generally pretty costly. The fact that the servers have generally been quite reliable, has really decreased expenditure. I know that when I put a server in place, they will simply run. I had servers that were still from the PE2650, and PE4400 up until fairly recently when everything got replaced. There is something to be said about reliable hardware.

Unfortunately, I am now more in the space of IaaS, so I am a little bit removed from that particular area. In my experience when I was actively using Dell's servers, they were always improving their hardware, and coming up with more efficient solutions. One of the things that I had started using pretty extensively is blade servers, as they are more efficient on energy, and can provide the same computing power as racked servers, yet consume much less rack real estate.

I have used all series of Dell PowerEdge servers for about 12-14 years, through to the 12th generation.

For the most part, my experience with Dell was in conjunction with VMware vSphere, and VMware View. There were some issues that I encountered with the servers, but it is a result of having multiple server generations with different processors in place, which caused some problems with HA and DRS with VMware, but these don't necessarily quality as issues with the servers themselves. From a hardware perspective, these servers have always been rock solid.

I think the customer support at Dell is adequate, at least when it comes to their server support team. Some other areas are more lacking, but over all, and as it relates to servers, I have no complaints.

Most of my experience has been with Dell servers, so I can't comment much on different solutions.

If you're familiar with deploying servers, then it's not really complex. There is a bit of a learning curve when it comes to setting up the OpenManage server and agents, but nothing unsurmountable.

I have always deployed my own servers. If you are operating in an SMB, I would recommend that you get your hands dirty, and learn how these servers are setup, connected, etc., as it is going to be a matter of when, not if, that the server is going to have some failed component, that you're going to want to know how to deal with. Typically, if you have your Dell support, even the basic one, I believe you are able to get a technician to come help with hardware repair/replacement.

Well, since this is a discussion about hardware, one would argue that ROI isn't really much of a relevant argument in this case, as the factors for it would depend more than just the actual server purchased. This is really a CAPEX expense, and given today's technology, and the business need and requirements, I personally would much rather start moving my computing resources to the cloud, (i.e: AWS, Azure, Rackspace, etc...), and shift that CAPEX into an OPEX and free up some funds for more fluid cashflow.

I have worked very minimally with HP servers as well, which were also pretty good servers.

We primarily utilize Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers as hosts for virtual machines.

We opted for the OCP primarily due to its exceptional modularity. With compute nodes and storage nodes sharing the same form factor and rack, it simplifies maintenance tasks. Any necessary adjustments can be made seamlessly without the need to unplug cables, as everything is contained within the rack itself. This user-friendly design streamlines operations, particularly for individuals with limited training in server management.

Our older PowerEdge servers consume significant amounts of power due to their age.

In terms of high performance, there hasn't been any improvement or decline. We have sufficient redundancy to tolerate the loss of multiple nodes without any impact.

In terms of productivity, we have the capability to interface directly with the servers when necessary, eliminating the need for remote access.

There is potential for enhancement in terms of its overall upgradeability.

I have been using it for five years.

In terms of stability, overall it has been satisfactory, although we encountered some issues due to outdated hardware. At one point, we experienced failures likely stemming from aging components, such as a faulty CPU that led to the shutdown of certain virtual machines.

It fulfills its intended functions, but we haven't identified any advantages to the additional features. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.