HP drops the ball..

H-P Blames $8.8 Billion Charge on Bad Deal - WSJ.com

Ouch.. I think some one heads will role.

I am currently looking in to make the choice between HP and CISCO, have to say news like this will affect my choice.

when you consider the total equity of HP is $22.5 Billion, 8billion is a big chunk of that!

Find more posts tagged with

SAVE $250 on Your Boot Camp — Use Code "EXAM26"

Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026

View Boot Camps

Comments

paulgswanson

Im not really suprised, we use Hp here, and that news is kinda not suprising to me, its almost expected.

was the only HP had over cisco cost? (I mean as far you decision was concerned)

DevilWAH

My view was Cisco is un-challanged in bringing the best technology to market in a well tested standised form. But you do have to pay for it.

HP is cheap and packs a lot of tec in to the same cost, however it is not standerised across the product range and the hp community is small compared to CISCO, if you keep mainline in configuration its OK, but step of the beaten track and you can get in all kinds of bother, if you can get it to work at all.

To me CISCO is the better kit in many ways, but if you only need a car to pop down the shops then you don't need a super car, a small well made cheaper hatch back will work just as well. So i was considering HP as the access layer devices (Already moved to CISCO for core), however with this kind of news i will be looking to see HP turn the corner before I would consider them.

it_consultant

I love HP servers and switches, business wise they do some DUMMBBBB things though.

I wouldn't fear buying HP switches. They won't go into bankruptcy and they are far from an acquisition target. It is also very unlikely that they will spin off their networking division, it is a very profitable line of business for them.

The CLI is standardized as long as you buy from within the old pro curve line, I wouldn't buy the 3COM holdovers for any reason. I use HP 3500YLs and
a few of their chassis based products (5412zl) and they are very consistent.

The main problem isn't HP to HP consistency it is HP to Cisco, you are better off buying an FCX switch from Brocade, it is much closer to Cisco in CLI look and feel and at the HP price.

demonfurbie

i gave up on HP a while ago... i have found that most dell products fit my needs so far

SteveLord

I use to have HP Procurve switches. Then some Cisco co-workers kept wondering who the heck would have recommended them X amount of years ago (before my time.) Now have Cisco. I don't manage them either way, but Cisco folk are obviously easier to find. The state does heavily favor HP servers though.

On the subject, HP is just dumb these last few years. 2 words: Slate and Touchpad.

wes allen

I like the HP servers I have worked with, and have heard nothing but good stuff about their switches. They have some cool storage to server network stuff. And I know Cisco is where the certs are, but I really like the Enterasys gear I work with as well.

it_consultant

Whoa....enterasys, they are a cabletron spinoff, you don't hear too many people on these boards that use enterasys switches. I love when network engineers (mostly Cisco guys) show up in a non Cisco network and the first thing they do is say "you NEED Cisco, why would you have bought anything else?". Well, sir, because HPs are 40% less expensive, easier to manage, and forward packets just the same as Cisco does. We are switching off of HP only because it is their refresh time and we wanted to have a consistent vendor across storage and ethernet. Otherwise, I would have kept with HP networking gear. I have almost converted them to HP servers, one look at the ACU compared to whatever stupid PERC flavor of the month Dell is selling and people are convinced.

DevilWAH

it_consultant wrote: »

I wouldn't fear buying HP switches. They won't go into bankruptcy and they are far from an acquisition target. It is also very unlikely that they will spin off their networking division, it is a very profitable line of business for them.

The CLI is standardized as long as you buy from within the old pro curve line, I wouldn't buy the 3COM holdovers for any reason. I use HP 3500YLs and a few of their chassis based products (5412zl) and they are very consistent.

The main problem isn't HP to HP consistency it is HP to Cisco, you are better off buying an FCX switch from Brocade, it is much closer to Cisco in CLI look and feel and at the HP price.

I looked at brocade and to be honest there reviews are not great, and when you get down to the nitty gritty of it and ask the pressing questions there standard answer is "that will be released in first or second quarter next year" (indeed not that uncommon from HP either).

I was at UK HP head offices a few weeks back, what my over all impression was that they have high through put devices that implement the standards well. But they are not exactly ground breaking. Good workhouse I would say they are. I also asked two engineers and matrkting guy and one of there developer And not a single one could tell me the road map. All of them when on the great things 3COM promised but as far as they knew HP was going to develop the 3COM line along side the procurves and chassics. When I questioned them about there differences between code version , they acknowledged it and said they had been working for years! to sort it out.

Considering they only have a $2billion RnD budget (as they where proud to tell me), and are looking to develop the 3com, the procurve and the chassis switchs I think they are cutting it a bit fine. Especially when you compare CISCOS 40+ billion RnD.

With the losses they are taking and having the lowest share price in a decade, I am not worried about them going bankrupt over night, I am worried about them losing ground, and ending up in 3 or 4 years as a minority player with a mediocre product line up. Back in the day 3COM was a good product, and look what happened to them..

atorven

I wonder how all this could have been missed in the due diligence process with all those top auditing firms going over the books.

DevilWAH

it_consultant wrote: »

easier to manage.

That I can't agree with. CISCO is so logical to configure and design, I think CISCO and HP is like LINUX and WINDOWS.

Windows/HP easy to configure the basics and leads you by hand through it. LINUX and CISCO, need to get your head round it but once you do it gives you much more power to play with is easy to work out how to do stuff. I have worked on a network with a few thousand HP devices and the engineers where for ever frustrated at the amount of work required to keep it working.

However the main thing is how can a business expected to be supported when i is losing 8 billion. If I am buying of HP thats my money they are losing, I expect them to feed the profits back in to the company to develop there products so later on I can benefit from them.

malcybood

DevilWAH wrote: »

I looked at brocade and to be honest there reviews are not great, and when you get down to the nitty gritty of it and ask the pressing questions there standard answer is "that will be released in first or second quarter next year" (indeed not that uncommon from HP either).

This is too true.

In my last job we went Brocade and the story was always "that is in the next software release"...Kind of worrying when that was IS-IS routing protocol in one particular case...Brocade are unrivaled in FC / SAN switching arena but anything more than basic LAN switching they are still not quite there yet for Ethernet.

They are cheaper than Cisco though

HP networking sucks in my opinion

it_consultant

What were you asking for that they didn't have released until first or second quarter of next year [talking about Brocade], or more to the point, what concrete item is it that Cisco offers that Brocoade, Juniper, or HP doesn't offer? HP is the second largest switch manufacturer in the world and there isn't much movement in the market. In fact, Cisco is losing ground in the switch/router world to their competitors.

Cisco competitors catch the user eye despite old loyalties

I wouldn't discourage people from buying Cisco products based on that just like I wouldn't discourage anyone from buying an HP switch because they made a bad acquisition. HP, Cisco, Foundry/Brocade,Juniper, and Ad Tran have been making quality products for years and will likely continue to do so.

I am mainly curious of the features Cisco has that its competitors don't because I have asked this of Cisco network guys before and I didn't get anything concrete. In essence, what I got was "I know how to work on a Cisco and therefore it is better".

it_consultant

malcybood wrote: »

This is too true.

In my last job we went Brocade and the story was always "that is in the next software release"...Kind of worrying when that was IS-IS routing protocol in one particular case...Brocade are unrivaled in FC / SAN switching arena but anything more than basic LAN switching they are still not quite there yet for Ethernet.

They are cheaper than Cisco though

HP networking sucks in my opinion

Yeah, IS/IS has support in only a few of Brocade's switches. You have to buy the ISP (MLX and Netiron) class of switch in order to have that support.

If you are using IS/IS (which is somewhat obscure for the enterprise), you better make sure the switch line you are buying supports it.

wes allen

Yeah, I did a search for "enterasys" here the other day and not a lot showed up. The KY State contract for network gear is nortel/avaya and cabletron/enterasys, so probably different for most other places. They have a pretty solid lineup of switches and wireless - great security and policy stuff baked in, and a PODNet setup that is pretty cool. But, if I want to work outside the environment I am in now, Cisco is the big name, so CCNA is next on my list.

malcybood

it_consultant wrote: »

Yeah, IS/IS has support in only a few of Brocade's switches. You have to buy the ISP (MLX and Netiron) class of switch in order to have that support.

This was for a MPLS transformation project where MPLS core was to run IS-IS as this was the global standard protocol for MPLS core throughout the whole company (large outsource company in 50 countries). It wasn't until we got to the detailed design stage though that this came out in the water (a.k.a. the problem was the project team's and not the architect's who selected the technology).

I moved to pastures new before the project kicked off properly but I know they got it implemented in the end and it's a stable platform, not sure if they ended up using OSPF or IS-IS as the IGP or not though!

DevilWAH

it_consultant wrote: »

What were you asking for that they didn't have released until first or second quarter of next year [talking about Brocade], or more to the point, what concrete item is it that Cisco offers that Brocoade, Juniper, or HP doesn't offer? HP is the second largest switch manufacturer in the world and there isn't much movement in the market. In fact, Cisco is losing ground in the switch/router world to their competitors.

Cisco competitors catch the user eye despite old loyalties

I wouldn't discourage people from buying Cisco products based on that just like I wouldn't discourage anyone from buying an HP switch because they made a bad acquisition. HP, Cisco, Foundry/Brocade,Juniper, and Ad Tran have been making quality products for years and will likely continue to do so.

I am mainly curious of the features Cisco has that its competitors don't because I have asked this of Cisco network guys before and I didn't get anything concrete. In essence, what I got was "I know how to work on a Cisco and therefore it is better".

Brocade there is loads, they are still new to ethernet and there product is no where near mature. They admit to this, and even offered a reduced rate if we would let them run trials of there equipment Brocade are great for FC and I have them for that. While I would consider them in a few years when they have matured they are to much of an unknown.

HP one example was QOS across the back plane in the chassis switches. Yes HP say they can forward data at as higher or higer rates across there devices, however CISCO can run QOS on the backplane so even if you manage to swamp the switch with data you can still insure business critical is deliver lag free. Only Switch vendor that can do it, so you can over subscribe the back plane to keep cost down.

it_consultant

malcybood wrote: »

This was for a MPLS transformation project where MPLS core was to run IS-IS as this was the global standard protocol for MPLS core throughout the whole company (large outsource company in 50 countries). It wasn't until we got to the detailed design stage though that this came out in the water (a.k.a. the problem was the project team's and not the architect's who selected the technology).

I moved to pastures new before the project kicked off properly but I know they got it implemented in the end and it's a stable platform, not sure if they ended up using OSPF or IS-IS as the IGP or not though!

It sounds like they bought the wrong equipment for the task, a problem no matter which manufacturer you are buying from. I don't use this line of switches but the CER series seems to have IS/IS support.

Brocade NetIron CER 2000 Series

I know of two networks in my area that underpins a MPLS/VPLS network with Brocade gear so I know that it can be done. One also runs a metro-ring protocol based on Brocades.

DevilWAH

Any way why has this thread gone to CISCO vrs HP??

nothing to do with who has the better technology, but why has HP made so many business errors lately and how worrying is it that there share prices are the lowest thay have been in a decade, and while every other vendor is coming back from the recession they are still falling fast. From a high of $50 a share they have dropped to $20 since start of 2011. That is a serious fall and it is a steady trend downwards.

No matter what people want to say about them, if the next two quarters are the same as the last 5 or 6, HP will be falling out of the bottom of the market. There current business is simple not going to sustain them in the long term.

it_consultant

DevilWAH wrote: »

Brocade there is loads, they are still new to ethernet and there product is no where near mature. They admit to this, and even offered a reduced rate if we would let them run trials of there equipment Brocade are great for FC and I have them for that. While I would consider them in a few years when they have matured they are to much of an unknown.

HP one example was QOS across the back plane in the chassis switches. Yes HP say they can forward data at as higher or higer rates across there devices, however CISCO can run QOS on the backplane so even if you manage to swamp the switch with data you can still insure business critical is deliver lag free. Only Switch vendor that can do it, so you can over subscribe the back plane to keep cost down.

That isn't really true, is it. Foundry was formed in 1996 which was around the same time that Cisco was buying up smaller switch companies to form their catalyst line. It isn't as if they fired all the Foundry developers when they were acquired. All of the Brocade ethernet (with the exception of the VDX line, which is linux based [derived from their FabricOS]) OS' are forks of Foundry's original code.

I have to admit that I had to look up where the QOS in an HP is done, which is on the ASIC, they claim the same capability - swamp the port which traffic and keep important data lag free. Admittedly, if I thought I was going to saturate a port entirely, HP would probably not be my first choice

malcybood

it_consultant wrote: »

I am mainly curious of the features Cisco has that its competitors don't because I have asked this of Cisco network guys before and I didn't get anything concrete. In essence, what I got was "I know how to work on a Cisco and therefore it is better".

I'm mainly a "Cisco guy" but I work for a system integrator partnered with multiple other companies such as Avaya so I'm not hell bent on Cisco unless it fits the customer requirements / strategy - therefore this is more of a question than a statement.........

Do HP / Juniper / Brocade etc have a data center unified fabric "story" or solution?

Some of the features that absolutely kick ass and are revolutionary (when they came out) in the Cisco Nexus are

OTV - stretch L2 domains over L3 i.e. MPLS
Unified fabric / ports - Combine FC/FCoE/Ethernet traffic within the same switch
FEX (Fabric Extenders) - remote line cards used as ToR connected over 10GB reducing DC cabling in half

I would not be surprised to see some of these features move into the campus i.e. campus FEX where the 6500 can treat access switches like a fabric extender.

As I say I don't know if this stuff is already available with the other vendors but in my experience Cisco leads the way and the others follow.

This to me shows innovation and an innovative company is much more attractive to a customer than a company that is getting press for stuff like the HP article above or a company that jiggery pokery's a competitor's product to be "better".

My personal opinion of course.

My worst experience in switching was the old Nortel (now Avaya) Baystacks and even the Passport 8600. There's always a bug of some kind when software updates are released

malcybood

it_consultant wrote: »

It sounds like they bought the wrong equipment for the task, a problem no matter which manufacturer you are buying from. I don't use this line of switches but the CER series seems to have IS/IS support.

Brocade NetIron CER 2000 Series

I know of two networks in my area that underpins a MPLS/VPLS network with Brocade gear so I know that it can be done. One also runs a metro-ring protocol based on Brocades.

This was 3 years ago, so there probably are products now that have IS-IS. My point was more around the Brocade story didn't match the kit THEY were pushing / selling to us back then.

it_consultant

Well, actually, I have sitting on my desk, a Brocade VDX 6730 which is an 8 port FC and 24 port 10GB ethernet switch which is an FC forwarder. Brocade was actually first out of the gate with the ethernet fabric, which isn't shocking since they are a huge FC vendor and the ethernet fabric is, in essence, an FC fabric with ethernet signalling. Brocade can, and does, converge the ethernet storage and ethernet from their VDX series to the converged network adapters in the servers.

Juniper has a similar product but it requires a director switch to keep track of all the ports in the fabric, the Cisco and Brocade solution does not require this.

It is actually the other way around, Cisco is playing catch up in the storage and converged ethernet/storage arena.

it_consultant

malcybood wrote: »

This was 3 years ago, so there probably are products now that have IS-IS. My point was more around the Brocade story didn't match the kit THEY were pushing / selling to us back then.

Brocade did not start supporting IS/IS only three years ago. I am not sure which line was purchased but I can promise you that since before Foundry Networks was acquired they had full IS/IS support. It would have been impossible for them to have ever been used in the ISP realm which is where you typically found a lot of Foundry equipment.

I had to dig deep into the internets:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Foundry+Networks+Announces+Next+Generation+Terabit-Capacity+10...-a0131720699

They mention full IS/IS implementation. Apparently the "netiron" name has stuck around since 2003. I have worked on Foundry branded BigIrons (pre 2008] which had IS/IS support.

Coolhandluke

Devil,

We have a network of mostly HP switches and I would have to agree with most things you said. Any monkey can pick up the interface and reconfigure stuff but the features are lacking when compared with Cisco. That said, pound for pound they do what we need and I wouldn't hesitate when buying more. The 3com stuff they are churning out seems reliable, we have a few of those, but they need to create a consistent approach and this is where cisco have always done well.

On the subject, HP is just dumb these last few years. 2 words: Slate and Touchpad.

And not to mention 12 months ago when they said they would sell of the PC business as there is no money in it ...... then change their minds 2 months later .....

malcybood

it_consultant wrote: »

Brocade did not start supporting IS/IS only three years ago. I am not sure which line was purchased but I can promise you that since before Foundry Networks was acquired they had full IS/IS support. It would have been impossible for them to have ever been used in the ISP realm which is where you typically found a lot of Foundry equipment.

I had to dig deep into the internets:

Foundry Networks Announces Next Generation Terabit-Capacity 10 Gigabit Ethernet Router for Metro and Internet Service Provider Networks With Industry Leading Pricing; New NetIron 40G Router Designed to Accelerate 10 Gigabit Ethernet Deployment Throug

They mention full IS/IS implementation. Apparently the "netiron" name has stuck around since 2003.

Perhaps the Brocade SE that was dealing with us should have known this then.

malcybood

it_consultant wrote: »

Well, actually, I have sitting on my desk, a Brocade VDX 6730 which is an 8 port FC and 24 port 10GB ethernet switch which is an FC forwarder. Brocade was actually first out of the gate with the ethernet fabric, which isn't shocking since they are a huge FC vendor and the ethernet fabric is, in essence, an FC fabric with ethernet signalling. Brocade can, and does, converge the ethernet storage and ethernet from their VDX series to the converged network adapters in the servers.

Juniper has a similar product but it requires a director switch to keep track of all the ports in the fabric, the Cisco and Brocade solution does not require this.

It is actually the other way around, Cisco is playing catch up in the storage and converged ethernet/storage arena.

I bet the Ethernet features pale into insignificance when compared to Nexus.

Plus two pieces of hardware to deliver a unified solution?

Back to Cisco features over *insert non cisco vendor* .............In the case of the Nexus 7k I forgot to mention virtual device contexts feature i.e. multiple separate switches (up to 8 ) with dedicated fault domains i.e. a spanning tree loop that brings down VDC A doesn't affect VDC B on the same hardware.

Fabricpath another feature which I won't ramble on about..............the list goes on.

Sounds like the Cisco guys you were asking about features that separates Cisco from competitors were either junior or clueless wonders.

it_consultant

malcybood wrote: »

Perhaps the Brocade SE that was dealing with us should have known this then.

Yes, no argument here. In a lot of ways the purchase of Foundry by Brocade set them back in the purely ethernet realm. Foundry used to be the go to switch for high density environments where they were likely to hire a bunch of Cisco trained people. They got the Cisco experience without the Cisco tax. However, with Brocade [seemingly] leading the market in ethernet fabric deployments; the gamble may pay off in the long run.

it_consultant

malcybood wrote: »

I bet the Ethernet features pale into insignificance when compared to Nexus.

Plus two pieces of hardware to deliver a unified solution?

Back to Cisco features over *insert non cisco vendor* .............In the case of the Nexus 7k I forgot to mention virtual device contexts feature i.e. multiple separate switches (up to 8 ) with dedicated fault domains i.e. a spanning tree loop that brings down VDC A doesn't affect VDC B on the same hardware.

Fabricpath another feature which I won't ramble on about..............the list goes on.

Sounds like the Cisco guys you were asking about features that separates Cisco from competitors were either junior or clueless wonders.

Yeah, you need a special network adapter (for converged ethernet/FCOE), even in a Cisco deployment. Your example of a spanning tree is easily implemented in a Brocade switch. Cisco fabric path is actually the exact same as Brocade's virtual cluster switching. Right down to using TRILL instead of SPB. I am pretty sure that VCS was released first, but in cosmic time they were practically the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_Channel_over_Ethernet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Cluster_Switching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converged_Network_Adapter
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps10265/ps10280/data_sheet_c78-525049.html
http://newsroom.brocade.com/manual-releases/2010/Brocade-First-to-Market-with-Ethernet-Fabric-Solut

Should we continue on this path, or would you like to review the features of the Brocade VDX switch before you assume that the Brocade can't do what a Nexus can do.

The only reason why I know it is because I baked off a VDX against a Nexus and found them to be equal but for two things, 1) The Cisco was pricier and 2) We were already using Brocade for storage and we were unwilling to convert our FC network to Cisco.

sratakhin

We have about 50 HP switches in our college and I can say many good things about them. They are easier to configure than Cisco (less typing), have worked without any problems for the last 5 years, and have the best warranty. If any of the needed features are missing, try to update the firmware.

A few weeks ago, I replaced a switch in a really dusty environment. I guess some dust made its way into the fiber transceiver, so there were a lot of errors and disconnects. I called HP and they sent the new fiber transceiver the same day without charging us anything. I replaced the transceiver the next morning and it's been as stable as it should be.
We also had a failed fan in one of the switches (also, really dusty environment). The switch kept working, but the warning light was flashing on it. HP sent another switch. It was refurbished, but it's hard to find new switches like the ones we have

We still use a lot of 26xx and 28xx series.

it_consultant

BTW - This is why I contribute to TE boards, I always learn something from folks who have different opinions and experiences than me.