HPE OneView Reviews

The centralized management of the HPE Virtual Connect (VC) is the most valuable feature.

Just having a centralized view, instead of having to go to each chassis for managing Virtual Connect is very helpful; I got it all in one place.

It tends to detect flood conditions on a lot of the networks. I'll have blades that are suddenly offline because it detected a flood condition on that particular NIC. I've called support on that and they're like, "Yeah, we have detected a flood condition, it is a loop." However, I tell them, "We don't have a loop." So, you reset it and reboot the blade; the ESX comes back up and away you go. That has happened to me three or four times now. So, hopefully, we can figure out what's causing this at some point in time.

It has been stable, I haven't had any problems with it at all.

We have six HPE c7000 chassis, across two data centers and everything is good. We have a single OneView product in each location.

I have used technical support. It has been probably a year, but I have used them. They are excellent.

Previously, we were just managing the blades directly through the HPE Onboard Administrator (OA) and Virtual Connect (VC). We were building up brand new data centers, with brand new equipment and we had the choice of doing it the old way, or using OneView; we could just have two places to see it, i.e., one on each data center. So, we decided to combine it, this was a suggestion by one of the partners.

Stability and support are the most important criteria while looking for a vendor.

The setup was straightforward; it was pretty easy. It's a pretty simple setup; you just install your server. It's a virtual appliance and you throw it on there, start it up, add your chassis and away you go.

If you are experienced with OA and Virtual Connect, that it's a completely different animal when you're in OneView; the interface isn't the same. Finally, you figure out how OneView works. It could be that you, maybe, have never used a chassis before and then, finally, you understand this Virtual Connect beast and how to set everything up. Then, you're like, "Let's get OneView!" and you switch to OneView. The theories behind it are the same, but the interface is different and the way you set it up is different. So, I will advise being aware of going in.

It provides a good view of the whole infrastructure. It makes it easy to manage the infrastructure, including the server infrastructure and firmware updates.

It keeps our costs down and improves the time it takes to manage our infrastructure and deploy.

We have different operations teams managing the servers. It should be segregated more in terms of which operation team is managing which group of servers.

I never faced any stability issues.

It is easier and faster to integrate a new BladeSystem, new servers, and a new chassis into an existing HPE OneView instance.

We have a good relationship with HPE. It is not really with technical support, but more with presales for defining the cost of features and services.

Previously, we managed the servers manually.

I was involved with the initial setup with the engineering and the operations team. It was quite easy.

I would advise colleagues to look into using this solution. Now we know that HPE OneView is the future and an important the layer of synergy management; so we need to use it right now.

When we evaluate vendors, we want a good explanation of the product and a good understanding of how the support will be. A good relationship with the vendor is important, as well as a lower price. Even if we know that this product is technically the best, the manager won’t want to select it if it is more expensive than others.

We want it to improve our organization. We feel like we're in this cycle of transition of products, from SIM to OneView, and we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but the tunnel seems to stretch. It's quite long.

I hate to say, not a lot. It's encouraging to see a couple of features in version 4 that we think ought to have been there from the start. So, we can see the development path, but so far it's been limited in what we've gotten out of it.

Those features coming in version 4 that we're looking for are the discovery, primarily. But I think the scope-based access control is of interest, although, we didn't see any directory integration, so that, in itself, seems like it's still limited. 

At the scale we're using it, which is not much, I don't think stability is something we could comment on, really. It's fine for what we've been using it for.

Depending on the ability to discover, we'll be able to answer the question of whether it will meet our needs going forward.

I think we've got the information we need. It's more of a product-set lack rather than support lack.

When we're looking at vendors we look for the product itself and innovation. With respect to the HPE, that's what we look for, and dependability and standardization, rather than going too proprietary on things. Integration as well as strong partnerships with the likes of VMware. We are a VMware shop and, aside from the current issue, that close tie between the products is of great benefit to us.

One-pane-of-glass, i.e., being able to manage all our facets of hardware through one-pane-of-glass, is the most valuable feature.

It has improved the working of our organization by providing more consistency within our firmware, drivers, firmware baseline and server profiling; thus it provides more consistency.

There should be an easier management of the driver and firmware baseline.

The stability of the solution is unfavorable. We have had some struggles with OneView. We have seen a lot of errors and a lot of open cases. We are progressively seeing text that says “Upgrade! Upgrade! Upgrade!”. That is not what I want to hear when I have a production issue. I can't just take down a production server to upgrade. They need to fix the problem rather than constantly chasing our tails to upgrade.

We're growing into multiple data centers, so having multiple OneView instances, is something that we're just deploying now. I'm not completely familiar with it yet, so we'll see.

The support has been a struggle at times. On the server side, it has been a little bit better than on the storage side; the storage side has been a real struggle. Some of the biggest issues that we ran into were that we have a pretty strong regional team. But, when our regional team coordinates with the global support team, on the HPE 3PAR side, there's a big disconnect and then as the customer, we get hit on it.

Previously, we were using a different hardware vendor. The inconsistency of the drivers and firmware was one of the strongest reasons as to why we switched to HPE.

The setup was fairly straightforward. The UI was easy to use, which was good.

We looked at other solutions namely IBM, Dell, and Cisco. It was a business relationship for choosing HPE, as well as their price-point, was strong. At the time, the Gartner reports indicated HPE was the leading vendor from a server/hardware perspective, so that is why we selected this solution.

Leverage your technical account managers (TAMs) and your technical advisors when deploying the hardware.

It provides easy administration.

It minimizes our administration for the market.

I would like to see, probably a little bit tighter Type B integration.

The product is really stable.

It is very scalable.

The technical support team is very responsive.

Actually, it was just that, at that time, we decided to invest in this solution. We were still using the HPE ConvergedSystem.

The setup was very complex, but it wasn't always complex. We had some issues at the micro-level, but they resolved all of that.

We were still using the HPE equipment before the ConvergedSystem.

The stability and support are important factors while selecting a vendor.

I would actually look at the support model for HPE in the newer versions.

The most valuable features of the product are health control, keeping an eye on the status of the server and the repository management for firmware.

I can download the SPP from HP and upload it to OneView. After that, I can add servers to that SPP and choose to deploy it to the servers. OneView 3.0 gives us the control of the health on our servers, it reports it directly to HPE with fault, and also gives me a fast message when something happens. In 3.0, the errors messages are better explained.

Insight Remote Support that came with 3.0 automatic reports faults to HPE, and I get reference a number back from them. In an hour or less, I get called or contacted by HPE. This information is also added to the support portal, there I also have all my servers added.Then, I can write a message on the case from the Portal, and also read what HPE is doing.

Firmware - In 3.0, HPE has done a better job with firmware updates, added more features, and also enabled the possibility to stage updates on the iLO card. Now you can create a template and add a server instead of one profile for each server. This helps when changing settings to an FKS VMware template or Hyper-V template. When I upload I spp to OneView, I can now have more than two spp uploaded, this gives me the possibility to downgrade to older spp if I have issues, and also have control of what spp and firmware are installed on servers.

It provides a better control of what is installed on each server. Now, we have control over the hardware status and what is happening on the hardware in regards to hardware failures and other alarms

In the new version, we're going to get warranty status and automatic failure reports to HPE. These benefits we are going to use for sure.

I would like to choose what I want monitored from the server. I want to disable features like performance monitoring, utilization, and power control. They could add more customization of the SPPs in the system, so I can upload the SPP but then select what I want or don't want in the SPP after I've uploaded it into the system.

Another area of improvement could be in the report functionality by providing more customization so that I can create customized reports since I like to use the ones besides what HPE wants me to show.

We have had different stability issues. We have experienced a lot of downtime on it. We have used this product from the first version up until what is available right now and have noticed that a lot of the functions have stopped working suddenly with no reason. This was now in version 2.0.7. Then we maxed out the amount of alarms and after that the system crashed. However, HPE has cleaned this out.

For the last four weeks or so, we have had no issues. We still have version 2.7 but we are planning to upgrade to version 3.0.

In the earlier versions, scalability was not that good but it has improved in the newer versions. The appliance is designed more for bigger environments and the whole GUI is faster than the old ones.

The technical support is okay. It's better when I come to the second level; the first level isn't so good. They should know more about how OneView works and not just read out the standard stuff and rules from a paper because no customer is the same. In addition, when I call them, I have downloaded my part of the analysis and I just need help to find out how to fix the error.

We have used HPE before, i.e., the old system. We have had HPE from G4-G9

We have stated to use HPE Blade systems C7000.

I was involved in the setup process. When we started the process, it was easy to install. It worked right after we opened some firewall ports; everything worked okay. It was okay in regards to service and management; nothing difficult about that.

I implemented oneview my self, but had some help from HPE.

You should start small in size . Initially, start with 5-10 servers and have that running for a couple of months to see how it works. After which you can deploy it on everything else. In other words, start small, work it out and then get bigger.

Oneview

From my previous experience with stability, the system needs to prove that it is stable now and that the functions are working better than the earlier versions.

We use this for monitoring our hardware. It is performing fine. 

We cannot function without this solution. 

• Primarily the monitoring capabilities
• A clear overview of the whole environment, the health of the whole environment

There are some important features for security in the next version. That is one of the better improvements. 

It has improved over time. It has become significantly better.

It is sometimes limited between what we see and in the next version that there will be in the global dashboard, and it will help us to get a global overview. For now, we are in separate instances. 

I have not used technical support.

We have been using it four years, and also the previous version, HBC. 

I am happy with the price. It is good.

It is a necessary tool for us and it works well. I would recommend it to a colleague at another company looking for a similar solution.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: There are multiple factors - the stability, the pricing in some parts, etc.

The anticipation of improvement comes from our partner. They have experience with other customers, most of the time bigger customers. They said this is a good direction to start heading in, it's future proof and it will simplify management of your equipment. So we're trusting the partner.

Having one platform to monitor and to access or configure all the servers or the 3PAR, etc.

It's rather simple to use, and that's very important for us. Being an IT person - I'm working for a chemical organization - we have to know a lot, but we can't be specialized in anything. So it's good that it's simple, that we can use it for just normal daily work.

I cannot say. Maybe there will be, but my experience is not deep enough at this moment.

It's a stable product, it's working fine. 

Even thought we just started using it, I'm sure about the scalability. That's also the reason why we started with it. It will become one product we can use more and more, we can add other items to it. It also looks it will be a standard inside HPE. They will keep on using this for a long time.

To be honest, I'm not really communicating with HPE support on this product.

We had some issues when we were implementing 3PAR, then we were communicating and the communication was really good. It was a hard issue, but they really put the effort in it to supporting us and to bring a solution. I appreciated it. Even if it was not a nice time, they did everything that was possible to fix it.

We have not been using it so long actually. It was implemented by our partner a few months ago and now we are starting to put all our equipment inside OneView.

At this time I would say it's an eight out of 10, which is rather good, because the product is working. It's implemented at our site and we can use it without many problems, and it is being used - and that's very important. Very often you implement a product and there it stops. But it's really being used. I'm looking at it, very often. I will not say every day, but often.