The [Cisco Catalyst 9500 Series Switches] is very well suited for datacenter core and distribution models, they work very well as a replacement for the 3850 switches that many smaller organizations use for core switching. The Catalyst 9500 series switches also works very well as a top of rack aggregation switch for SFP and QSFP connectivity.
We manage a lot of public infrastructure and schools which means we need reliable hardware that is easy to prep and install quickly due to time constraints. The price is great as we must keep a close eye on our budget.
We use these switches in all types of situations and configurations some are full SFP and others are ethernet but honestly the software and hardware are great for our usage.
Wireless Access Points (APs) zero touch provisioning
Its high-end family (running the AOS-CX firmware) supports a virtualization technology called VSX (Virtual Switching Extension) which allows 2 switches to present itself as one virtualized switch under Layer 2, and as 2 separate routers under Layer 3; thereby providing high availability.
Well the ACI, so the AP, the controller give us good chances to run everything, to configure everything. But the monitoring itself, it's not that easy. You need other products like Nexus dashboard or something else to do the monitoring. This is a little bit of a con. It's another technology so everyone has to think a little bit of others to adapt this knowledge and it takes two years I think for a technician to understand what ACI is really doing and what we can do with it.
I have had issues finding monitoring software that natively supports Provision/Aruba OS. Most are designed primarily with Cisco in mind.
HPE/Aruba switches have historically had issues with corrupt flash. This seems to be less common in more recent models.
HPE/Aruba's switching portfolio can be confusing. Some models run on the Aruba OS while some others run on Comware. There is some overlap in these model lines so at times is can be tough to tell which switch is right.
Based on the site load and requirements, the switches meets our processing and fiber ports requirements. Also they have great potential for future programmability options we are looking into.
It is a very good product, has almost all the feature you can need to access switches, a simple web GUI management, but not all can be configured from the GUI interface.
The Catalyst 9400 was not out when we were looking at new core switches. We thought about using a Nexus 9k but neither were as good of a fit as the 9500. Between price and performance it was a no-brainer for us to look at the 9500. We have not nor in the future would we consider other brands for core switching.
The HPE Aruba Switches are definitely easier to setup than Cisco Catalyst Switches. We prefer to have a managed interface, so the HPE Aruba Switches are a better option than most Netgear or D-Link switches. Compared to HPE Networking Switches, the Aruba models typically are cheaper and perform nearly as well
These switches did require a purchase of the DNA license on top of standard switch licensing, even if the functions are no needed in the environment.
The increased SFP & QSFP connectivity enabled for faster processing within our compute environment. While the system is too new to quantify the value added in this, it undeniably will help with its ROI.
