Cisco UCS or HP hardware for VMware SRM?


Do you prefer using Cisco UCS or HP hardware to run VMware SRM ?

Let me know your real world experiences when it comes to server configuration, ease of setup, etc. 

Please detail why you chose one vendor over the other if possible. 

Anonymous avatar x30
As seen in

12 Answers


Major enterprise firms I am seeing use Netapp and EMC storage for SRM ...yes I agree to the effect that it takes a team effort to implement and manage SRM DraaS testing for large customers's definitely a niche skill ...netapp Snapmirror and EMC Rpa. On a side note ..I recently started testing Nakivo backup appliance in POC lab

Like (0)02 December 16
74c6197e 010c 438d 8f5b c6b067acc76d avatar?1458839530
Bob LanningReal User

UCS is super easy for from our standpoint - but I would take a look at Zerto vs SRM. You will be happy you did!

Like (0)24 March 16

@Paul - I have to disagree with needing a consulting company to set up SRM. I have deployed SRM in our environment with Nimble Storage and it works perfectly. I completed the entire setup and configuration myself so if you know VMware and your Storage well you can complete the installation yourself without requiring a third party company. As for the hardware type never used UCS as we have all HP gear for our VMware Clusters which is rock solid with no problems other than the firmware updates every now and then.

Like (0)08 March 16
Calvin zito li?1414332423

Actually there's a difference and I'd suggest what you need to look at is the integration between SRM and storage. Storage integration with SRM is key and if you look on the VMware Compatibility Guide for SRM, storage is all that is listed, not servers. Last I checked, Cisco wasn't doing storage. Within HPE's Storage portfolio, we have Storage Adapters for SRM across all the major storage products (MSA, StoreVirtual, 3PAR, and XP Disk array).

Also of significance is that HPE is a design partner with VMware. So while SRM doesn't work with VMware vVols, it will in the near future. With 3PAR, we had day 1 support for vVols when VMware introduced it and if fact 3PAR was VMware's exclusive FC array development platform.

So I think the question you should be asking is storage integration as that is what is key for SRM. Here is a link to VMware Compatibility Guide for SRM that I mentioned:

Like (1)08 March 16
A5b61158 fe13 4817 b5b9 acad6cf6fd8a avatar?1457174641
Emanuele RoserbaReal UserTOP 5

There's no point in asking, no great differences between them, hardware is very standardized nowadays. So management software. BTW I ended in using a solution that manages orchestration and replication at the hypervisor layer, sparing me a lot of troubles, but this is probably out of the scope of your question.
Best regards, Emanuele.

Like (0)05 March 16
Anonymous avatar x30
Manager007Real User

I have used SRM with a multitude of storage vendors and also using VMware replication. My experience with storage replication is that storage vendors dont always release newer versions of their replication adapter and its an extra hassle to keep inside the supported matrix.

Recently we have moved away from SRM and now use Zerto instead which is great. Its also possible to replicate between ESX and Hyper-V (i.e. use Hyper-V as a recovery site to save on licensing expensive VMware) which works great. I would never go back to SRM having used Zerto. Zerto also helps with a more gradular upgrade approach too as its possible to replicate from an older version of ESX to a newer version of ESX or indeed the other way around.

As for your original question, would I choose UCS over HP? No way - HP is rock solid, I have used it since the Compaq days - love the stuff! I echo the firmware issues on the UCS too, certainly in the earlier days, a nightmare at times!

Like (0)02 March 16
1082cd6a 8819 4015 a7aa 49557737091a avatar?1436271184

My former company used Cisco blade but its not about the Servers Stack as it is about the functionality.  If the customer already has the SRM licensing than I recommend proceeding with either blade model.  The killer is the storage volumes and the v-replicate tool functionality.   It not meant for larger workloads. without SAN replication attached.
I would highly recommend a product called Zerto;  SAN agnostic, fail-over fail-back, orchestration, testing and simple reporting.  Blows SRM away.
If this member has any more question or would like to see Zerto in action let me know.  It is simply a game changer.

Like (0)02 March 16
Steven aiello li?1414669533
Steven AielloReal UserPOPULAR

Hardware is hardware, it really doesn't matter from a SRM perspective. To comment on Steve Clark's experience, whatever sales engineer told you there wasn't a way to rolling update is out of their mind. You can update single blades in UCS manager, you can plan rolling restarts etc.

I do think there are some VERY strong benefits to UCS over every other platform out there. I've also used Dell, and IBM blades in very large data center environments. What I like about USC is that they run off of profiles.

So let's say for example that you have some test / dev blades and you have a failure of one of your production blades, if you're booting from SAN you can simply change the profile of your test / dev blade to that of production and your back online. No other server vendor has that capability at the moment.

It's very powerful stuff. It does mean management is a bit more complex because you have to create the profiles, but I believe it's worth it.

Like (1)02 March 16
Steve clark li?1429026964

I've had some bad experiences w/ Cisco UCS - specifically around firmware. It seemed every time we needed to update firmware (as an example - firmware didn't allow full functionality of Hyper-V administration) - every box had to be updated at the same time, meaning a complete system outage (or at least that's what our vendor explained - I can't believe there wasn't some possibility to waterfall the outages over a weekend and eliminate the need for a complete outage). Imagine telling your CRM and ERP users they need to take a 24 hour outage if you are a global company.
I've never run HP, so can't comment on their capabilities. Always had good luck w/ Dell.
How large or a DR scenario are you looking at?? Have you considered software replication between sites, which is much more flexible......

Like (0)02 March 16
Hernan paggi avatar 1431378783?1431378781
Hernán PaggiReal UserTOP 5

It is truly independent of the hardware that you have. If the question is directed to which of the two platforms use I would go for the UCS, without this meaning that HP is bad, not at all.

Reasons? Well, it would be because I used this platform in several of my deployments and is very simple to set up. Always keep in mind that SRM is a product of VMware and as such runs on ESXi, and its configuration has little to really do with the underlying platform. Another advantage is that UCS can access many advantages in the network subsystem, allowing interconnection in a network of this manufacturer is much more transparent. SingleConnect technologies like Cisco are very attractive to keep order and eficiency in the data center. In short, if your network technology is Cisco, UCS is the way.

On the other hand, if HP is the manufacturer of your choice or technology have them in your company, you can go by HP. SRM will do its job well anyway.

I hope I have been helpful

Like (0)02 March 16
Anonymous avatar x30
Paul GoldbergUserTOP 5

I wouldnt implement SRM, I would use Zerto, installs in less than 2 hrs and
just works. With SRM you need a consulting company to deploy and it really
doesnt matter the hardware platform.

Like (0)02 March 16
Bb74d10a f5e5 4263 b9ff 59a18b2edf53 avatar?1453875948

Cisco UCS is my preference.


Like (0)02 March 16
As seen in

Sign Up with Email