This document provides a list of competing features from the HP BladeSystem and Cisco UCS solutions. The objective of the document is to highlight weaknesses and strengths as a starting point for an enhanced competition to UCS in the Data Center area.

1. CISCO UCS vs HP Virtual Connect/BladeSystem
Stefano SOLIANI
November 2013
Introduction
This document provides a list of competing features from the HP BladeSystem and Cisco UCS solutions. The objective of the document is to
highlight weaknesses and strengths as a starting point for an enhanced competition to UCS in the Data Center area. Weaknesses should be considered
from both the customer perspective (to create the proper message and perspective) and HP internal development and technical marketing (to plan for
future features release, partnership or marketing material).
Legenda:
GREEN: HP advantage
RED: Cisco advantage

2. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
Chassis c3000 – 8 blades
c7000 – 16 blades
(or up to 32 servers if the double-dense
option is enabled)
16/32 servers is the upper limit to one
BladeSystem, scalability is achieved with
replication of entire enclosure.
5108 – 8 half width blades – up to 20
(potentially 40) chassis under one UCS-> up to
160 (potentially 320) servers → higher
scalability, lower total number of switching
components
Compare entire architecture according to
the required number of servers (see
below)
System
Manager
Virtual Connect Manager runs on Fabric
module.
VCEM is a plug in for HP System Insight
Manager and benefits from the rich
feature set of HP-SIM.
UCS Manager runs on fabric module.
UCS Central SW consolidates management of a
number of UCS Managers.
UCS Director extends management, automation
and orchestration across the entire DC, including
UCS, Nexus, Storage (ex: Vblock, FlexPod)
UCM integrates with third-party management
tools (from BMC, CA, EMC, IBM, Microsoft,
Vmware) through open XML API.
VCEM is part of an architecture of
management tools from HP
OneView simplifies some operations vrt
UCSM/UCS Central
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL_l
GGnkzk
Equipment
discovery
Don't know UCSM automatically perform an inventory and
deep discovery of any attached equipment,
without manual intervention, in around 10
minutes, regardless of number of chassis.
Captured info are under Equipment tab.
Profiles Server Connection Profile content:
MAC address
WWN
SAN boot
PXE boot
UUID
BIOS settings
VLAN assignment
VSAN assignment
Service Profile content:
MAC address (from pool in template, per fabric)
WWPN address (from pool in template, per
fabric)
VLAN
VSAN
UUID (server id, from pool in template)
WWNN (storage node id, from pool in template)
Boot Policy
For every missing component of a server
Connection Profile define its necessity
and value (simpler profile but still well
scoped facilitates operations)

3. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
PXE boot settings
iSCSI boot settings
NO template or cloning ?
Power control policy
BIOS settings
Firmware version
Adapter policy
QoS Policy
Network Control Policy
Pin Group Policy
RAID settings
- templates and cloning to replicate profiles
- more settings than in SCP
- support « stateless server »
Server
deployment
Difference is pretty significant (47% in
time). Mostly due to installing firmware
updates on Proliant blades.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co
llateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/ns944/ucs_vs
_hp_deployment.pdf
Time to deploy a new server is shorter with
UCM than VC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nijWlNzSgC
Q
Fabric VC FlexFabric module (24 ports) 61xx – 62xx (up to 96 ports) enables larger
scalability in single domain
Compare whole architecture and multi-
domain.
Type of
Fabric ports
- uplink
- downlink
- stacking
- uplink
- server
- sync
- appliance ports
Does BladeSystem consider a single L2
domain north of fabric switches?
If not, this is not an issue.
If yes, how is an appliance connected ?
Switching
mode – Loop
avoidance
VC loop avoidance and no STP on DC
LAN side. VC modules present
themselves as endpoints. Loop avoidance
blocks uplinks to avoid loop.
End-Host mode, no switching on DC LAN side.
Elements present themselves as endpoints.
Switch mode and EH mode can be used
independently on Ethernet and FC fabric.
Switching
Architecture
HP BladeSystem is flatter, as the 2
fabrics are connected also to transport
Switch fabrics do not transport traffic F2F, they
need another L2 switch for comm between:
Fewer hops for HP

4. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
traffic from fabric to fabric. – 2 servers pinned to different fabric switch
– 2 VMs on different servers pinned to
different fabric switch
– 2 VMs on SAME host using VMFEX to
bypass the vSwitch, because vNICS are pinned
directly to fabric switch
Rule to optimize : connect VMs/servers
communicating with each other to the same
fabric.
Switching
mode -
pinning
There is no Pinning mechanism to link
blades port to uplink ports. The VC
modules work in switching mode.
Pinning simplifies operations in UCS, increasing
switching speed.
Pinning is done at server level. This means that
all VMs running on a server will be pinned to the
same uplink. This can bring some unbalance in
load sharing on uplinks.
No need to select VC modules mode,
switching is on and loops are prevented.
Switching
mode change
Not a problem. must change to Switch mode when attaching
separate L2 domains, which is often the case
when 2 already existing nw needs to talk to the
apps on UCS (to be fixed in UCM after v1.4).
Blade
features
Proliant BL460c
Processor : 2 socket Intel Xeon E5 family
- up to 12 core
disks : 2 x SFF hot-plug SAS, SATA,
SAS SDD, and SATA SSD hard drive
Memory : up to 384GB
Adapters : 2 on board adapters +
additional cards - see below
B230 M2
Processor : 2 socket Intel Xeon E7-2800
Disk : 2 SSD drive
Memory : up to 512 GB
Adapters : 2 CNA (see below)
B230 has more memory and newer
processor. Need to deep dive to discover
more, or highlight other features/future
releases.
HP is Gartner's #1 for Blade Servers in
2013
http://www.gartner.com/technology/repri
nts.do?id=1-
1FGKRJ6&ct=130506&st=sb
Network FlexFabric adapter. Cisco VIC or 3rd parties adapter. Cisco closes some doors refusing

5. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
Adapter VC Flex-10 Gb Eth module transforms
each blade port into 4 NICs, managed
individually. Up to 24 connections per
blade.
These are physical interfaces, therefore
applies also to physical server (with
hypervisor you can set bw limits at VM
level).
Minimum and maximum BW can be set.
HP supports Netqueue for I/O
virtualization and performance
optimization.
HP supports SR/IOV for direct attach to
VMs to bypass vSwitch
Cisco VIC 1280 supports up to 256 virtual
interfaces.
With UCM and Cisco VIC you can set CoS
using % of the total link BW as a minimum (you
can also set the maximum). This is done per
vNIC or per port group (group of vNICs).
Cisco vNIC does not support Netqueue
UCS does not need SR/IOV as it supports VN-
Tag, but some VICs support SR/IOV
Netqueue support.
I/O performance can be in favor of HP.
Better BW allocation for HP.
Port
Aggregation
Link Aggregation Control Protocol
(IRF?)
Equivalent in HP?
LACP and Port Channel/Virtual Port Channel for
Ethernet
F_Port Channeling and Trunking for FC ports
between UCS and N5K/MDS for resiliency and
load balancing
NW
Virtualization
VC-Flex 10 does not support VEPA Cisco VIC supports VN-Tag http://www.definethecloud.net/access-
layer-network-virtualization-vn-tag-and-
vepa/
Performance - 2x10Gb/server with embedded dual port
- up to 100Gbps/server in full-duplex
with additional adapters
- up to 5Tbps across enclosure midplan
- minimum 1Gbps up to 80Gbps/server (depends
on # of FEX-Fabric cables and VIC – VIC1280
supports up to 8x10Gbp)
- 8 x 10Gb/FEX
- Midplan : 160Gb/chassis (1:1 oversubscription)
FEX to fabric is full duplex (x2 in BW)
Over-subscription ratio may grow in UCS
with full server deployment per system

6. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
Scalability &
Components
16 blades scenario :
1 VCM
2 Fabric modules
16 blades
16 Flex-10
20Gb/blade (embedded dual port, no
additional adapter)
128 blades scenario :
1 VCEM (1 domain with VCM)
16 Fabric modules (8 with double-dense)
128 blades (4 c7000 enclosures is upper
limit for one VCEM domain)
128 Flex 10
20Gb/blade (embedded dual port, no
additional adapter)
32 SAN cables (2 cables/enclosure and
SAN)
1 UCM
2 Fabric modules
16 blades (2 chassis)
16 VIC
4 FEX (part of the 2 chassis, automatic
management)
34 cables (16/chassis, 20Gb/blade - automatic
management)
160 blades scenario :
1 UCM
2 Fabric modules
160 blades (20 chassis are supported so far)
160 VIC
40 FEX (part of the 20 chassis, automatic
management)
82 cables (1/fabric+4/chassis, 5Gb/blade,
automatic management)
4 SAN cables (2 cables/SAN)
max scalability to keep max BW/blade and
oversubscription to 1:1 :
10 chassis (8 uplinks/chassis to each fabric) →
80 blades
Cisco seems more scalable on the switch
fabric side.
More components on UCS.
Scalability issue on I/O performance for
Cisco, as UCS can only scale to 40
blades to use adapters at 10Gb.
VCEM can scale up to 1000 server in 250
domains.
Cost http://www.slideshare.net/Ciscodatacenter/cisco-
ucs-hp-and-ibm-a-blade-architecture-
comparison?utm_source=slideshow01&utm_me
dium=ssemail&utm_campaign=share_slideshow
To be verified
Congestion
control
Priority-based Flow Control – Quantified
Congestion Notification (not yet
implemented)
Data Center Bridging (PFC, but not QCN)
(QCN not needed
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral
/ns340/ns517/ns224/ns945/ns1060/snia_whitepa
per.pdf )

7. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
Fiber channel FCoE is great but requires new switches
to support it. BladeSystem C7000
supports FCoE, and then extrapolates the
traffic as Ethernet, Fiber Channel.
UCS has IO Modules in fabric to provide FC
connections. Blades can only use FCoE, which is
then extrapolated to FC at fabric.
In Switch mode Zoning is pretty basic (per
VSAN zoning), unless MDS is connect to fabric
switch, in which case fabric switch can
download zoning tables.
Similar for FCoE.
iSCSI is routable across IP networks,
while FCoE is not.
SAN Up to 4 FC uplinks to SAN, therefore
max 4 different SANs can be connected
per switch.
Servers are pinned automatically to SAN
uplinks
All ports configurable as 1/10 Gigabit Ethernet
or 1/2/4/8-Gbps Fibre Channel
NPIV supported supported
Networking
standard
Ethernet
Fiber Channel
Fiber Channel over Ethernet
iSCSI
Infiniband
Serial Attached SCSI (SAS)
Ethernet
FC
FcoE
iSCSI
Infiniband is valuable for its ultra-low
latency support
Extended
feature set
HP 5900v is a virtual switch to facilitate
VM migration and integrate switch
management down to VM level
(worldwide availability in October 2013)
Cisco provides additional features either directly
or through partnership with other major players.
Ex : N1Kv for VM-FEX, VMware NSX for
distributed virtual firewall, distributed L3
switching, etc
Relationship Cisco/VMware is getting
complex after deployment of NSX.
Power
Management
Not found anything on this. Power can be controlled through power priority
and capping, applied to power groups.
Power
consumption
To be analyzed using available Cisco and
HP power calculators.
Traffic Don't know SPAN in UCS can be attached to logical

8. Domain HP BladeSystem with Virtual Connect CISCO UCS with UCS Manager Competitive Approach
Monitoring elements, not only physical. F.e., vNIC, vHBA,
VM, VM-FEX
IPv6 Supported UCS works with Ipv6. Only management is on
IPv4 only (IPv6 in roadmap)
Cisco DC technologies
A fully competitive approach to Cisco in the server space should enlarge the vision to the entire DC technology.
Cisco provides a large set of architectures, solutions, products and technologies to face every aspect of the life of a DC. A complete competitive
analysis should be done to highlights areas of HP superiority, areas of improvements, and create customer messages while asking technical marketing
and internal development to provide a counter action.
The following summarizes Cisco DC capabilities.

9. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/white_paper_c11-706418.pdf
Gartner gives HP the highest ranking for Completeness of vision in the DC Nw Infrastructure, and position HP as the best alternatives to Cisco,
especially for the work done on SDN, network management and automation.
http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-1E20SLP&ct=130212&st=sb
Cisco launched on Nov 6, 2013 a series of products, technologies and partnership to fully support the Application-Centric Infrastructure
http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/8090762-cisco-pioneers-real-time-application-delivery-in-global-data-centers-and-clouds-to-enable-greater-

10. business-agility?source=email_rt_mc_body&app=n
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns340/ns517/ns224/ns945/app-centric-
infrastructure.html?CAMPAIGN=Insieme&COUNTRY_SITE=us&POSITION=PR&REFERRING_SITE=Press_Release&CREATIVE=PR+to+ACI+
launch+landing
The SDN concept has been taken to the extreme, with a new concept of controller capable of transforming an application set of requirements into
computing, networking, storage and virtualization components, all managed centrally through both Open APIs and highly performing hardware.