Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

UCS vs HP Deployment

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Company growth requires expanding server capacity. The Cisco Unified Computing System’s automated configuration process simplifies this expansion. We compare how much easier and faster the Cisco UCS solution is than the equivalent HP solution. We show each approach simultaneously,0 to demonstrate the ease and speed of the Cisco UCS solution for deployment of new servers. First,0 we create a service profile and then assign each to a blade slot. Cisco UCS allows us to apply a single service profile template to any number of blades we specify. In comparison,0 the HP solution requires us to manually copy a new server profile for each blade we add. We then insert the two Cisco UCS servers into the Cisco UCS 5108 blade server chassis,0 and the two HP servers into an HP BladeSystem c7000 Enclosure. From this point on,0 the steps for each solution are completely different,0 with the Cisco UCS solution demonstrating the strengths of its automated process. It automatically configures both the blades we add. Onscreen,0 you are now seeing the UCS automated process at work; no additional user interaction is required until we are ready to install an operating system. With the HP solution,0 we have to configure each blade manually. This requires many additional steps and is a more complex procedure. For any blade we install into a chassis,0 KVM access is required to install an operating system onto each blade remotely. Cisco UCS offers this remote access by default. After the Cisco UCS has finished configuring the blades,0 we only need to open the KVM link to verify that the blade is ready for operating system install. Unlike the Cisco UCS solution,0 the HP solution does not offer KVM access by default. Each HP ProLiant blade’s ILO requires an advanced license pack to enable the remote KVM feature. Part of this process involves entering a 25-digit key for each individual blade’s ILO. The advanced license pack is an additional purchase,0 which we must buy and enable before we can install an operating system onto the blades. By requiring fewer steps,0 the Cisco UCS solution is not only easier than the HP solution at deploying blades,0 it is also much faster. When we add a 2nd blade on the Cisco UCS solution,0 there is no administrative work required; the Cisco UCS solution configures everything automatically. Thanks to this automated process,0 we are able to deploy two Cisco blades in 14 steps. We accomplish this even before we finish deploying our first HP blade. In contrast,0 the HP solution is still requiring our input throughout the entire installation process,0 often making us repeat the same steps for each blade that we add. These increased manual steps on the HP solution leave more room for human error,0 which can result in system downtime. Troubleshooting these unnecessary errors costs time and money. The more time your company spends on blade deployment and on troubleshooting,0 the greater the risk of lost productivity or slower response time to other business needs. The ease of use and time advantages of the Cisco UCS solution are significant for companies implementing a large-scale blade server expansion. Because the Cisco UCS solution’s automated process should take companies no additional time or steps for many additional blades,0 it can save them upwards of several weeks’ labor. After 42 steps,0 28 more than the Cisco UCS solution,0 and almost 18 more minutes,0 we finish deploying the two HP blades. Large-scale blade expansion is now a quick,0 easy,0 and error-free task. To learn more,0 read our detailed deployment report,0 found on the PT Website.

Video Details

Duration: 4 minutes and 22 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Views: 166
Posted by: ciscotv on Mar 22, 2013

UCS vs HP Deployment

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.