Cisco FlexPod vs. StoneFly Unified Storage Appliances

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco FlexPod
Score 9.4 out of 10
N/A
FlexPod is a converged infrastructure option developed by NetApp and Cisco. FlexPod is available in streamlined and simplified Express version, and the FlexPod Datacenter edition for enterprise private clouds, VDI, scale-out infrastructure, or software defined data centers.N/A
StoneFly Unified Storage Appliances
Score 0.0 out of 10
N/A
StoneFly Unified Storage Appliances are hyperscale unified storage solutions with support for NAS, SAN and object storage. StoneFly converged storage appliances are capable of scaling out to thousands of nodes with support for petabytes of enterprise data.N/A
Pricing
Cisco FlexPodStoneFly Unified Storage Appliances
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco FlexPodStoneFly Unified Storage Appliances
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco FlexPodStoneFly Unified Storage Appliances
User Ratings
Cisco FlexPodStoneFly Unified Storage Appliances
Likelihood to Recommend
9.5
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco FlexPodStoneFly Unified Storage Appliances
Likelihood to Recommend
Cisco
FlexPod is great for mid to large size companies, where the flexibility and depth of a traditional SAN and high performance servers is required. For smaller companies, it might make more sense to go with a hyper converged solution such as Hyperflex or Nutanix (both of which can still run on Cisco UCS servers, but would not be making use of Netapp storage), to meet the requirements in a smaller footprint.
Read full review
StoneFly Inc
No answers on this topic
Pros
Cisco
  • Single Pane of Glass Server Administration.
  • Ease of firmware upgrades.
  • Incredible support when you have an issue. The Cisco/NetApp/VMware FlexPod support teams work together and drive your issues down to the root cause.
Read full review
StoneFly Inc
No answers on this topic
Cons
Cisco
  • KVM control of the blades still requires Java. Avocent is using HTML5 now, and it would be nice if the KVM console for these UCS blades could too.
  • Price - Like any Cisco product, there are cheaper options. They aren't nearly as fully featured, but at times, it would be nice if UCS could be a bit cheaper.
Read full review
StoneFly Inc
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Cisco
Being a Cisco shop already it was a natural fit to go with a solution based on their technology. Then add in VMware which we are were already using - that was two out of the three for the FlexPod. Then factor in NetApp's de-duplication technology and flexibility in configuration and options and it's a match made in heaven. Not to say we haven't had some stumbles and some issues but it works and it works well.
Read full review
StoneFly Inc
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
Cisco
  • FlexPod has allowed our team to be extremely quick to resopnd to new VM build requests. The amount of RAM, CPU and backplane offered by B series blades allows us to go with very high VM density. The quick deployment of service profile templates also means that when we have to add new hosts, it is done quicker.
  • FlexPod and the service profile portability (along with VMware) has allowed for full upgrades and migrations from M1/M2 series hardware to M4 hardware without any downtime or outages to the clients. Blades can be moved into new chassis, or service profiles moved to new generation blades, with no impact to the customers' ability to work.
Read full review
StoneFly Inc
No answers on this topic
ScreenShots