Cisco's site is so uniformly bad that it would take some obscenely good / unique features combined with extraordinary pricing to get me to seriously consider their server offering. I wonder if they know just how awful it is...
Heck, I can barely tolerate HP's site, and Cisco's is an order of magnitude worse. (IMHO) RS On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Barsodi.John <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah Cisco's site is horrible. > > We use many of the Cisco products for UC, connectivity, etc too. I'd agree > their stuff is all over the place. However, the UCS blades are different in > the sense of initial design. The memory consolidation tech they developed > is huge and single pane of management across multiple chassis. > > Thanks, > JB > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:20 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Cisco servers? > > If you say so. I spent about 30 minutes on the page you sent the link to > and saw nothing saying 32 or 64-bit, other than a reference to x86 > architecture. I'm only picking on Cisco slightly since we use their software > for VOIP and other communication purposes as well as VPN and ACS and I can > tell you that almost none of their software is yet 64-bit capable so with > nothing on the site stating that UCS is 64-bit my assumption with all things > Cisco is that it is not capable until proven otherwise. > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:12 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Cisco servers? > > Mmm, UCS is Nehalem only, perhaps you've heard of it? I think they've got > the x64 thing figured out.... > > Not saying it's the right solution for everyone, or even most SMB's, but > their product does have a fit. > > I think in this day and age of cost cutting IT budgets are taking you have > to look at alternatives to everything and evaluate them. If you are looking > to deploy a large new vSphere environment, the Cisco UCS blades might be a > great fit. If you need to grow and constrict your environment dynamically > Cisco UCS would be a good fit. > > Thanks, > JB > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:45 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Cisco servers? > > Perhaps one of these days Cisco will figure out that 64-bit computing has > in fact arrived. At that time they might have some legitimate claim to > belong in the server space. Until then, they really don't. > Personally, I would much rather buy an EqualLogic SAN with a PowerConnect > shoved in the back, or a LeftHand SAN with a ProCurve built in; than a Cisco > switch with God-knows what kind of server hardware hung off the front of it. > JMO, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 4:35 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Cisco servers? > > Does that mean you have to use IE5 with the version of Java that shipped > with Windows 2000 for the PDM type management interface, like you have to do > with PIX PDM ??? > > > > Erik Goldoff > IT Consultant > Systems, Networks, & Security > > ' Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! ' > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:22 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Cisco servers? > > Is this a surprise? Got a demo of them a few weeks back, they are sweet > and would work well in elastic environments. The management looks like the > Cisco PDM from 2004. The hardware scalability is really attractive. Read up > on what they've done with their memory optimization. > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns944/ > > Thanks, > JB > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Brutsche [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:57 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Cisco servers? > > I got that information from a Cisco reseller. > > The IBM servers they are selling are purely for the UCM VoIP stuff. Even > then, that much may be temporary. > > Raper, Jonathan - Eagle wrote: > > Hey Phil - care to reveal your source on that? The only thing I've > > found is from a Cisco blog where some Cisco employee flatly states > > that Cisco's servers are truly Cisco, and not manufactured by either > > HP or IBM... > > -- > > Phil Brutsche > [email protected] > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
