HPE ProLiant DL Servers Reviews

We are using the solution for less critical services.

They should improve the speed of the solution's processor. A core banking service like ours needs faster processing for our central server. We have to run an extensive process half yearly. The solution takes more than 24 to 30 hours to complete it. Ideally, it should take six to seven hours. Our industry is growing daily with an increase in the number of customers. Thus, we plan to move to a solution with better processing speed.

They should build risc processors with high speed. Additionally, they should reduce the prices as it is a significant concern for developing countries such as us.

We have been using the solution since the year 2012 or 2013.

It is a stable solution.

We have around 15-20 users of the solution in our organization.

The solution's customer service is good.

The solution's ROI is worth it for mid-level services.

The solution is not highly-priced, but it is more expensive than Dell.

The solution has a good performance ratio. I rate the solution as a seven.

The most valuable features of HPE ProLiant DL Servers are very high quality.

The price of HPE ProLiant DL Servers could improve.

I have been using HPE ProLiant DL Servers for approximately one and a half years.

I have found the HPE ProLiant DL Servers to be stable.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers are scalable.

We have more than 50 clients using this solution.

The support from HPE ProLiant DL Servers is very good, they are helpful.

The price of HPE ProLiant DL Servers is reasonable, but because of covid and other factors, the price could be reduced. The license is paid annually.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate HPE ProLiant DL Servers a nine out of ten.

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.

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.

We have been using HP products for six or seven years. We use HP Proliant DL 300 family and DL 500 family and blade servers like Enclosure C7000.

It works fine for general use or specific use of most enterprises, but for mission-critical servers, I don't think it is the best fit.

IBM systems have better scalability.

In our company, we have about 4,000 users. We also have a lot of outside users.

We haven't had any technical support yet because our country is not in the technical support area.

We have been using HP products from the beginning.

In the latest versions, such as G9 or G10, we have a very user-friendly installation. It took about 30 minutes to 1 hour. RAID is easy to install, and so is the server, but in earlier products or versions, it was somehow challenging. 

I deployed it myself. We have about six persons for the deployment and maintenance of the servers. They are system administrators for physical servers. For virtual environments, we have different teams to administer the use of our environment.

We have ILO licenses. We use this feature.

HPE ProLiant DL Servers are easy to use and suitable for mid-range users. HP has other products for enterprise users. I don't compare them with this family. We had the physical servers for all services, but now we are migrating to virtual servers using VMware.

I would rate HPE ProLiant DL Servers an eight out of ten.

Our software is working on it, so it's very useful for our company. I'm not using it myself, but we are responsible for selling it together with our software.

We'd like to see better processors, better Intel processors. That's the most important for us at this moment.

Also, the disappearance of the ML150 can be a problem. So we probably have to switch to the ML110, we don't know yet. Wa are also using the DL160, so it can be a problem. And that's why we may have to switch some of our products to a workstation.

It's stable. We sometimes have problems, but globally it's working fine.

It's scalable but we are switching to workstation for some software because the CPU speed isn't fast enough anymore. For some products we were already using workstations, but for some others we now need workstations for the clock speeds.

We are OEM clients, so the support is very good. We have direct contact so support is good. We used to have 13 x 5, but now it's next business day.

When we look to work with a vendor, we look for stability. That's the most important. What is very important is that the systems are delivered on time. At this moment, that's a big problem, because of the hurricane in Houston, probably.

Also the team we're working with, because we have different countries that are ordering. It's on us to follow up on the deliveries.

We value the ease of management in terms of the firmware. The hardware is very toolless to work with, so when you have to do a part replacement it's very hands-on friendly. You don't have to grab any quick tools nearby to swap out modules and such.

The layout is quite nice as, for the most part, you don't have to tear the machine half apart to get to a piece. So, sometimes when they have on-site technicians to replace a part, we don't have to send a senior technician out there to do it. They can pretty much easily find it and get the parts swapped.

Parts fail, that's part of the IT business, but the ability to be able to get in there quickly and get parts swapped is a very big benefit.

I've already seen quite a bit here at the conference that looks good. Well, one of the areas that I really am excited about is the iLo 5 (integrated lights out technology) on the HP blade technology where they're allowing a lot of the firmware flashing to take place through the iLo, which means I don't have to go through the OS, so that beats a lot of our servers.

Run Unix in a form that we can't reboot them more than twice or maybe less in a 30-minute maintenance window. The fact that I can flash a lot of the hardware from the iLo and not have to go through the OS means a far reduced outage time maintenance window, so that really helps take the pressure off us.

We have machines that go back quite a long time in terms of almost back to the mid-nineties on some of the servers. So stability-wise, yes we've had some pretty good results even in the old, old hardware from HP specifically. So yes, we've been happy with them so far.

Scalability has been pretty good. We just buy more. We just buy a lot of everything. So scalability hasn't really been an issue for us because we have pretty sizable data centers, but yes, certainly it has been a good product overall.

I have used technical support quite a few times. It has been quite useful.

HP has been very helpful in terms of getting a technician on-site, and parts available if we need them. They have always offered us a technician to actually do the repair, so that takes a lot of the workload off us.

Sometimes on some of the higher-end systems where there is a lot more money involved in the hardware, it just helps to take the pressure off to where we don't have to really put our hands on that equipment, especially when you're talking about a server that costs over $20,000. I'd rather have the HP guy work with it just for liability reasons.

We have a different team that does all the initial setup.

So the two biggest competitors are primarily, obviously Dell and HP. If I had to compare the two - I was at the Dell conference not too long ago just for investigation purposes - I would say that HP, in the long run, from my experience as I've worked with companies that have both, HP is just more stable, in the long term.

Like I said before, you want to avoid hardware fails, right? That's just a part of IT, but how the customer is being handled is important in terms of if we have a bad blade or we have a bad motherboard, because every now and then we get a blade that's just bad out of the box, right? The fact that the customer or the vendor, whoever that is, if they come out and do the right thing, just swap the part out with very little hassle, that's all right.

I don't have to go through a purchasing program where I have to do a repurchase or return process, and that's really helpful in terms of just doing the right thing, getting the parts swapped out, reducing our downtime, and that's our biggest paying point with the customer. Because we have customers too that scream when our stuff goes down, right?

If they're not using HP today, I would highly suggest them to take a deep look at it, in the long run, even just as a starter. I'm not saying that Dell or others are bad, it's just, in the long run, I like the hardware layouts better in HP.

The fact that they are consistent. I don't have to relearn for the 80 sites I support.

Stability and reliability. It's rare that it fails and, when it does, we have HPE support, with a four hour turnaround. It gets fixed.

I would like to see the simplicity of having the option of loading with something like SmartStart instead of having to make the external connection. There are issues with the startup that make it a little cumbersome. It takes us more time. Even though hardware and support might be rated higher, considering how much time we spend setting things up, that impacts us a lot. That's where the points get taken off my rating.

Scalability is about the number of drives and the number slots for memory and storage. We put in what we want. If it's not right, we put in more.

We have used technical support, and it can always be better. But everyone can. Sometimes I feel like I'm dealing with someone who is reading from a script, rather than with someone who understands the technology.

We knew we needed to invest in a new solution, because of lack of driver support. In the new Windows version, some drivers don't work with old MSAs and you have to get new ones. We used a previous generation of HPE servers before this.

When choosing a vendor, we look for support, reliability, durability, and not something that is end-of-life in a year.

I was involved in the installation. We ran it from the SmartStart CD to the online connection. (I don't know what they call it now.) It came with a supply kit and we could install it without an external connection. That's where we support it. In gaming, there is no connection to the outside world.

I would recommend HPE, but you have to be careful. Check if everything is compatible with what you currently have. You might upgrade part of a server, but not all of it. There can simply be incompatibility issues.

I like their scalability. The fact that where I have 24 drives in one of my servers, I can basically turn it into its own little storage tray if I want to, and then attach a server to it. It's really good for applications that you use really heavy disk IO.

For us, we use the DLs more on a piece by piece basis, so when our clients come to us with a very specific demand that really doesn't fit well with our blades, which is our preference, then we go to the DLs, and then we scale it out for whatever they need.

I'm not a fan of their rails. I hate how those things rack, as they're just not nice.

The server itself is quite good, easy to use. Configuration of it is a little bit tedious, you've got to be willing to spend a couple of hours just to get it set up before you can even start using it, because the reboots are ten - fifteen minutes long, and that'll kill you.

The cost per compute. I pay as much for a ProLiant DL as I do for a Blade. It requires more power, more cooling, more space for essentially the same function, if I wanted to, with the exception of additional storage. So for me it really does come down to cost.

We haven't looked at competitors in a very long time for those. We basically have stuck with HPE. It's a known name, so I don't want to give my customers something that might work, I want something that will work.

Get on it with OneView, because it's that single pane of glass, you can manage your blades, your DLs, and your 3PAR, all using that one tool.

I've been a ProLiant customer for years, since the late '90s. The ProLiant series has been very innovative over the years, compared to some of the competition that are not so innovative. It's very dependable, and they keep maturing the product more and more. Especially now, I'm looking at the Hyper Converged 380, so they're re-inventing new ways to use that technology. That's a great thing right there, with the Hyper Converged space as well. The management of them is valuable. I specifically don't use them on a daily basis, I have my engineers that do since they can easily manage the servers.

It's more of a rack server, it's more of a commodity kind of device. I know what I'm buying when I buy from HPE. I get that reliable server, good service, good support, and it works.

This server is separate from the next one and I'd like it to be integrated so it becomes all-in-one.

It's very stable.

Over the years that I've been involved with a lot of different server manufacturers as far as rack managed servers, Cisco C-Series, IBM X-Series, and a lot of HPE. They're comparable in many ways but we choose a lot of HPE because we know we're getting a good, reliable product and at a good price point.

It was very easy.

I had HPE do it.

Look at the Hyper Converged as everything's going to virtual, so look at the ProLiant in a Hyper Converged space.