Compared with other brands like Cisco and Dell, HP is very stable and very scalable. It's very useful for the Intel platform that we use it is related to VMware or Citrix.

We like the HP platform and have used it all these years. We are very comfortable with it. It's one reason we want to continue with it. However, the price is not that good. 

I previously worked with Dell and with IBM. Both are now good companies, especially when they merge their technology with EMC. I don't have recent experience with either of them. I think they've improved a lot over recent years and are probably at the same level as HPE.

We just did a merger, and the organization we merged with has two Lenovo blades that we use. Our boss's boss is a big Lenovo fan, but we don't have a ton of experience. It has been six months of usage.

I have previously used Dell and Cisco UCS.

I have previously used IBM and I was not happy with the solution. However, they no longer have the solution, they sold their portfolio to Lenovo.

I have worked with Synergy within the last 12 months.

We previously used the base system of HPE BladeSystem 1C7.

Mainly we are using blade servers from different vendors. We have Cisco UCS, HPE blade servers, and Lenovo blade servers on the global team.

In previous companies, I used HPE and the Cisco blade servers as well - the Cisco UCS servers. In one other company, I used Dell servers as well.

We used to use IBM. It was pretty bulky and took up a lot of space. It's hard to compare IBM to HP as IBM doesn't really show any good options.

We've used the BladeSystem and Synergy. The Blade is simpler. The Blade Enclosure C7000 does the same job. It has the same robust fault tolerance and redundancy. Yet at the same time, it's simpler to deal with, to work with.

They have to either simplify Synergy Frame as they will not likely keep going with the Blade Enclosure for a long time. They were still working on it two years ago when I spoke to them. They said, "for at least 10 more years, Blade Enclosure will keep going." That's what they told us. However, for some reason, we wanted to go to the Synergy Frame. It was the wrong decision.

For the very long term, they either have to modify the Synergy to make it more like a C7000 or they might have to rethink keeping and further developing C7000. That's my simple experience. 

With HPE Synergy, I had a very painful experience with updating by just really shutting down and rebooting the environment. We had a power outage, and a few things didn't come up properly. Also, when we did the firmware upgrade, there were a lot of problems. It's not as easy as the Blade Enclosure. Usually, I need to open a support ticket with HPE to get around the problems when it comes to Synergy. However, with the Blade Enclosure, it is easier to deal with things.

Well to be honest, I haven't ever used another BladeSystem from another vendor. Our organization has an HPE Direct as far as technology goes, so I haven't really been involved in considering other platforms so.

We used Microsoft SQL Server.

We didn't switch from a different solution. We had older models which we updated. We've always used HPE.

In my past at a couple director positions I've held, I've utilized Cisco's UCS product quite a bit. I've had experiences with that from when that product first came out. They're both very good systems. I think Cisco makes a solid product there. It might be coming to its life's end now. As things like Hyper Converged is starting to really take off and I like the slant that HPE has with the Synergy platform. That's almost like taking a BladeSystem or UCS kind of technology and moving it to the next level. That's what I see HPE doing with Synergy.

We went from individual servers, or individual racking at servers, to the blade system.

There was a company-wide decision, but we chose BladeSystem on the grounds that we had to do a rapid deployment. We didn't have an awful lot of time to get in to the detail, so we wanted something that knew was going to work. It's something we trusted would work. The scalability offered the fact that we could easily add to our installations in the various data centres that we have fairly quickly and horizontally scale out our applications.

Before coming on this project I had used Dell servers. The performance of the HP server has an edge over the Dell systems I had used.

I used to use a different solution but it was too different to compare. It was a very old system and it did not operate in the same way.  

I used rack form factor servers and switched to blades to gain consolidation ration. I also wanted to have better management control over the hardware infrastructure.

We use both BladeSystem and RackMail System a lot. By utilizing the computing capacity of both systems, we have more cores of HP’s BladeSystem than anything else. Our company’s growing so fast that we’re age-ing stuff out and replacing it very quickly.

I am not interested in new and shiny; I need usability right now. We switch whenever we do a hardware replace, and we tend to prefer HP’s computer platforms as they’ve proven to us that it's best not to mix and match in the computer space.

So far, we've bought only small devices, so it's not painful to change storage devices. Because of how we grow (acquisition and internally), we own mostly Dell the vast majority of the time, and as those systems go out, we replace them with HP hardware.

We were previously affiliated with the government, and they were using HP.

We used Rackmount, but we switched to this solution because it is integrated and saves space.

This is the first time we have used BladeSystems.

We were using Cisco UCS and we recently made the change to HP BladeSystem. We changed because of the ease of use. The Cisco UCS platform was more complex to run, and I felt that with my experience with just HP stuff it was really easy to set up and manage and maintain.

We were using IBM and they were horrible.

We previously just used normal HPE servers. Other than that, we've never used another solution. We've never used a Blade system.

We knew we needed a new solution because our data center costs were rising on our racks and we just had to slimline down into a more compact solution.

I have used HPE ProLiant DL Servers previously.

When comparing the HPE ProLiant DL Servers to the HPE BladeSystem, the HPE BladeSystems are compact and need less space for installation. They can provide the same computing as the HPE ProLiant DL Servers in the same unit and are a lot easier to manage.

We use only HP products. 

Every generation of NonStop is just an upgrade from their BladeSystem. They could have let be known that it was BladeSystem two, but they just gave it a different name.

We had HP Blades at the previous location, so we just bought the next generation of blades, but it was the same enclosure and some of it we did actually move across as we bought some initial hardware to seat things, and then as we freed up from our managed site we could then bring some of that technology across and continue to scale up in the new environment.

We've been an HP shop for so long and that's why we stick with them. We previously used EMC.

Before this solution, we had individual rack-mounted server blades from the DL Series. Those are being consolidated into the BladeSystem now.

What we had was many, many DL380 Proliants. I had a couple of them configured as VM hosts, and then we decided that to scale building, convergence, and the flexibility of what a BladeSystem could do for you made a lot of sense. It wasn't like I said something such as "Hey, I just want to buy a BladeSystem." But our vendor kind of walked us through all the benefits, and we were very happy with how it came out, and that's where we're going. Now we can't imagine doing business without it. We went from about twenty-five servers up to over a hundred. That would not be possible if I had to put a DL380 for each application. So just having the ability to have sixty servers in a two-by-two space is outstanding. That's been one of the biggest reasons why we went with it.

We were using HP DL 380 G4/5/6 then we decided to moved towards blade systems because it needs less space, while providing more. Also, it's easier to manage, as it's consolidated solution in one box.

We actually had different solutions, and still do. Solutions such as Cisco UCS, which has a very similar philosophy, beaome more complex and less effective. Solutions from manufacturers such as Supermicro, and Dell do not reach the expectations, and require more supervision and maintenance by our technicians.

They’ve had servers forever, and we’ve always had HP. So we just continued using the existing solution.

We used to use IBM. I wasn't part of the decision for the change but to be honest I'm glad we moved away from IBM. They had moved to LSI for RAID and their UEFI Bios meant every reboot took 10 minutes. Also their technical support was rapidly going downhill.

We have been using BladeSystems for almost six years now. We didn’t really have a previous solution.

We previously used other HPE servers, just the old ProLiant servers and other lines. We converted to BladeSystems and these products.

Initially, we were using the Cisco UCS Blade Server Enclosures. We switched to this product due to the integration with the Cisco Fabric Interconnects and to experience a new technology.

I don't have an awful lot to compare it to. I've worked with some other systems such as the Oracle DB appliance in another role elsewhere.

We were using expensive, in-house-developed hardware. From an R&D perspective, there was not enough critical mass to keep the investment going. In addition to the expense, order to delivery was six months for our in-house solution. In contrast, HP can turn around in two weeks, which is a huge advantage for us.

I have not used a different solution.

I have not used any other solution.

We kind of got in on the ground floor when the blades were first coming out. We decided to make the plunge just to save space and from there, we just fell in love with the blades. A lot of people have, with the space saving and they're just easier to configure than the rack mounts. You put in the blade chassis and you slide in the blades instead of having to rack 12 servers.

HP has a heritage you know. As I say, we love their solution. We trust their capabilities to innovate.

We are also using Dell servers. It is not a switch, and we switched because this is more fit for our purposes.

No, it was the first blade solution.

We trust the solution. We've used HP physical servers for 10 years, and never had any issues. We looked at different storage vendors, but in terms of servers it was the reliability of the HP products that led us to these blades as well.

We used rack mounted servers.

We previously had rack-mounted HP-UX servers. Our hardware refresh dictated that we move to blade systems in order to keep using HP-UX systems.

We're a telecom company. We've standardized around HPE, IBM, Oracle Solaris Sun boxes and now we've got VCE Vblocks. In terms of percentage, HPE's still about 60% of our landscape.

We moved to an x86 infrastructure and we could probably move other workloads from IBM-related infrastructure across to an HPE infrastructure. We could standardize further, but from an x86 perspective, it becomes more or less agnostic regarding which vendor infrastructure is the underlying infrastructure; as long as the operating system and virtualization can take place on top.

We had used HP rack servers previously.

I have used a lot of products so, I would have to make a long list of products here. It is probably good enough to know that from all of them, we have chosen to work with HPE. We feel it is the best fit and the most reliable product that we can use and it is a reasonable price.  

Most everything we had prior to building up our new data center was single server DL380s or 360 single servers. It would take too long to provision a DL380 to give people the access to a single server to be able to then do their development or build a new production environment.

I don't know what the previous solution was, but in our company every four or five years we have a renewal process for the older systems. That was probably the reason for the switch.

For me, when selecting a vendor, the most important criteria are that the system must be reliable, and the support as well. The support is very important because we have a lot of business-critical servers and if something goes wrong with the hardware we need the support.

I did not previously use a different solution.

I have used this HPE Enclosure as a part of the design; we are using this solution from the beginning and have not switched to it from any another solution.

HPE was in the company when I joined them; but I've used HPE in multiple different companies over many years now.

We were previously using HPE DL380s, but it was as standalone servers. We managed to take out about 10 or 12 standalone servers, and replace them with eight blades. It took up less than half the rack space.

We were using a similar solution from other vendors, but we found that HPE is much better.

We switched because HP is stable and reliable.

We have used SGI, Sun, and IBM and now Fujitsu. The procurement is thru open or limited tender only.

We were using a multitude of vendors with comparable differences.

We chose this product because of the stability and their market share is quite large. This means that older products come from the same principals that makes it easier to integrate, and the second one is that this particular item is good to implement.

We used to deploy IBM Blade Servers. The switch was due to company policy, although IBM products are also good.

Yes, HPE DL Servers. We switched to blade for scalability, optimization, and to improve our datacenter power, networking, space, etc.

in the old days, HPE had a horrifying type blade system. (I guess they were all horrible before this blade.) That was a long time ago. The C7000 set the bar for blade systems when it came out.

We were using Dell, and we switched because they couldn't provide us with service turnaround time for our environment that was sufficient for us.

We're also using HP Brocade SAN switches.

I previously used the Supermicro Twin server.

We used a solution previously and we switched because of cost and lack of passion by regional sales and marketing teams.

We were using many different servers and we needed to standardize our infrastructure.

We have been using the same products. No switch.

The decision to switch from other products to the current solution was not within my purview. 

We did not have a previous solution.

We were using older generation HP BladeSystems. We switched to the new version, because we needed more capacity. We were satisfied already with the existing BladeSystem, so we wanted to continue using it and went with the latest generation available.

No.

We chose it because we are already familiar with HP products.