HPE ProLiant DL Servers Pros and Cons

This is all I've ever used. These servers are strong, and they have very few failures on them. They are also easy to manage and monitor.

The pricing of the product is fair and not too expensive.

The robustness of the design of the server is the most valuable. HP servers are easy to use and user-friendly. The server is not complicated, and it is easy to use ILO systems.

We have had our system working for between two and three years with no downtime.

It is very stable. This is the feedback that I'm getting from my customers for the hardware. It is also 100% scalable. HPE is also very specialized when it comes up to the server industry. It is not only about the rack servers; it is also about the blade servers. They were the first ones to bring these to the market more than ten years ago.

This product is feature-rich and is easy to install.

Its reliability and after-sales support are very good.

The feature that I find the most valuable is that all alerts are integrated with HPE InfoSight. Any problem related to an HPE server can be solved remotely at L1, L2 level.

The most valuable feature is stability.

The product is scalable and stable.

They are pretty solid servers, but, just like all servers, they become obsolete after some time. They can maybe provide a console to monitor the health of the servers. There should be some kind of console to which you can log in to remotely check on the health of a server, even when the server is off. The servers that we have are only scalable to some extent. They have got a limited amount of hard drive that you can insert. Their scalability should be improved.

The technical support is pretty good, however, they could be a bit faster and more responsive.

In DL 500 systems, the flow of air is not good enough, and some components get overheated. IBM systems have better airflow and scalability. We have a data center that has limited physical space. Therefore, we need to maximize the processing or compute systems that we use. In HP servers, such as DL 500, there are only four processors, whereas IBM servers, such as SR 916, have eight processors. We don't get any support from HP because of our geographical location. We solve all problems ourselves by doing research on the internet. It would be good to get HP support.

The technical support could be a little faster.

It has something called WorldView. They should do some enhancement over WorldView to run an operating system as a code. Such a feature would be amazing for running multiple servers. They are already working on this, and they can enhance the existing versions for this. It should also be cheaper. It is currently expensive.

Sometimes, there are connectivity issues and the server is not able to connect to our SAN.

It is too expensive. Its price should be improved. The system admin interface should have better visibility while troubleshooting a problem, even when the problem is coming from the application.

They can increase the controller cache. Currently, it has a controller cache of up to 4 GB. The RAID controller card comes with a maximum of 4 GB cache in HPE servers, whereas it comes with a maximum of 8 GB cache in Dell servers. They can also improve the port size. HP provides a 25 GB port on the server, whereas both Dell and Cisco provide a 100 GB port.

The price of this solution should be lowered to make it more competitive.

Not all of the hardware is completely up-to-date.