Scale Computing offers edge computing, virtualization, and hyperconverged solutions for customers around the globe. Scale Computing HyperCore software promises to eliminate traditional virtualization software, disaster recovery software, servers, and shared storage, replacing these with a fully integrated, highly available system for running applications. The vendor says that, using patented HyperCore™ technology, the SC//HyperCore self-healing platform automatically identifies, mitigates, and…
$249
per year per core
XenServer
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
XenServer (formerly Citrix Hypervisor) is a virtualization management platform optimized for application, desktop and server virtualization infrastructures.
N/A
Pricing
Scale Computing Platform
XenServer
Editions & Modules
Standard
$249
per year per core
Professional
$312
per year per core
Professional Essentials
$5,600
one-time fee
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Scale Computing Platform
XenServer
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
Additional Details
Pricing shown in U.S. Dollar.
Pricing for other regions available on request.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Scale Computing Platform
XenServer
Considered Both Products
Scale Computing Platform
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Scale Computing Platform
Scale is much less expensive than VMWare and much more user-friendly than Linux.
The scale is as robust as VMware's but needs more vendor support, such as VEEAM, for backup. Scale overall costs caused us to move to the platform to reduce our overall costs from hardware and maintenance costs.
I have found Scale Computing Platform to be a lot simpler. I don't need to have a vSphere server running. I don't have to worry about my predecessor leaving my SAN carved up into small buckets, etc. I also don't need hearing protection when I am in the server room now, so …
I used VMware when it first came out and for several years after that but then took a break from it for years. When I came back, it was way too complicated and ultimately was too much work to learn and make useful in our environment. Scale Computing Platform was so attractive …
I'm fairly well versed in traditional VMWare installations on a variety of hardware, and even HP's first attempts at hyperconverged infrastructure. Scale Computing Platform is much easier to implement than any of those. 3 1U machines, no external storage, no SAN switch to …
We used a mixture of VMWare and stand-alone servers prior to moving to the Scale Computing Platform. After the initial investment, this has lowered our cost to maintain our server environment.
VM management is easier and faster. Snapshot management is easier and faster. User accounts are simpler to manage (though less granular). Basic alerts are easier to setup, though VMWare has a more granular approach. Updates to the Scale Computing Platform itself is so much …
We previously used Microsoft Hyper V and VMWare and, before that, a room for single-purpose servers. My satisfaction with Scale is because it is a more straightforward product to install and use; it has incredible speed and reliability. In the past, getting support from …
We ended up choosing Scale Computing Platform 4 years ago because that had better pricing than the other players and would offer everything we elected as pre-requisite for our system to work. Today, after several years using their system with no major issues, we can say it was …
We evaluated HP, VMware and Dell. These systems were all outside our budget (very substantially, in some cases) or required more management to deploy than Scale Computing Platform.
Scale has all the required features for failover and system availability that any other product has at a better price point. User interface is much easier to understand and is not cluttered with things you don't need.
Under 10 nodes and less than 2 sites, I would rather sell and support Scale. It's just as fast as any other HCI and more stable then VXRail. It's easier to setup and deploy, and get VM's running, and replicating between clusters. The only reason I would not consider Scale …
Scale Computing Platform provided all the functionalities we needed for our daily operations, with features that align with our processes. It has the advantage of a unified software package, without add-ons, which proved to be a financial advantage during the acquisition. It …
I have chosen Scale Computing Platform over the Nutanix for this reasons, #1 is the price difference between Scale Computing Platform and Nutanix. #2 is the complexity and ease of use of both solutions. In my opinion, Scale Computing Platform is way above nutanix as to the …
Price was outstanding, and competitive equipment wasn't an issue due to them using various brands and models. Sales reps were responsive, professional, and jumped through time hurdles with ease. Partnership with Acronis is a huge benefit, and the Carbonite license to move …
Cheaper, better, us-based support. Easier Administration. Lacks 3rd party backup and disaster recovery (bare-metal) A lot of people just have never heard of Scale Computing Platform so it's tough to figure out what the best on-prem, cloud-based DR services to use.
I have used both Hyper-V and VMWare. I continue to run a Hyper-V cluster and think it's great. More work to setup than the Scale nodes. VMWare is too expensive for education and not worth the time in my opinion.
In the scheme of the real world, Citrix Hypervisor is used much less than the other two main competing products; MS Hyper-V and VMWare VSphere. So, choosing Citrix Hypervisor for your organization comes down to whether you are comfortable going with a lesser-used product. All …
VMware seems to be the standard and is more widely accepted. However, Citrix Hypervisor, is easily learned and cheaper. We have also used VirtualBox to offer up ideas for other free products. VirtualBox seems to be easier for end users who just want simple VMs and not …
The price is very good. Also, the support from the vendor in the process of implementation and maintenance is very important. Citrix offers this support. The implementation was easy, and gave us the ability to manage a large virtual infrastructure while reducing costs. The …
Because we utilize Citrix for our VDI this solution made the most sense moving forward. Citrix Hypervisor was designed to work with Citrix VDI solutions out of the box.
Feature for feature they are neck and neck. I have used Hyper-V 2012 and 2016, VMWare ESXi and XenServer evenly. XenServer is a fast install, good documentation, with enterprise features out the box that compare or exceed what VMWare offered with a higher cost of entry.
There are other hypervisors that are more eficient than Xenserver, but it is necessary to spend some money to buy them. If your demand is to compute processing, Xenserver permits you to create good environments to do this. If you need to integrate the hypervisor with other …
XenServer is easier to use and cheaper than VMWare, but there is a bit less industry support. If your aren't afraid to use products from someone besides the market leader, XenServer is a great alternative to VMWare.
I used vSphere (and vCenter server), Hyper-V, and XenServer to teach a virtualization class. vSphere is certainly the leader among these three, and Hyper-V is second (but not far behind). XenServer is third, which lacks many advanced features provided by vSphere and Hyper-V.
XenServer like the similar product I've used in the hypervisor market stacks up well in regards to compatibility with virtual machine [operating systems]. It is also capable of allowing for large, powerful VMs to be run upon it. The main selection of XenServer in environments …
Scale is best suited to environments that do not have excessive external or proprietary peripherals. Integrating with tape drive backups or robot tape libraries can be problematic. The most effective use of Scale systems is for companies running multiple instances of the same operating system. The hypervisor's code/file-sharing nature does an excellent job managing new instances while keeping the increase in storage to a minimum.
It can be really helpful & useful if we are using Citrix Hypervisor with other provisioning tools. Here are some specific scenarios where Citrix Hypervisor (formerly Citrix XenServer) is well-suited: Server Consolidation, Virtual Desktops, Disaster Recovery, Development & Testing Environments. On the other hand, there are some scenarios where Citrix Hypervisor may be less appropriate: Small-scale Deployments, Highly Heterogeneous Environments, and Limited Virtualization Requirements.
Display the IP address of the node on which the VM is running on the Devices (gear icon) tab. This would allow me to manage my Microsoft license easier.
During the on-boarding I missed the step to install the Scale Computing Platform tools, and we didn't notice this until I had issues with backups. It would be helpful if some kind of alert notification would display on a VM card if the tools were not installed.
Add a new health or diagnostics tab that would display alerts, diagnostic tools, performance concerns or pattern anomalies.
Some kind of email/alert when a disk reaches near capacity
Although part of this is free the free solution has limitations that make the purchase of the paid version a requirement for most medium and large enterprises.
Support for USB devices is lacking vs. its competitors.
Technical support is somewhat limited especially the free "Google browsing" type since the product is used much less vs. Hyper-V or VMWARE.
In a related issue to tech support, finding local IT support who have used the product is also challenging.
Networking/virtual networks are less stable than they should be.
I'm on the fence about renewing the support contract. The reliability of the HC3 makes it difficult to spend the cost of the renewal which is higher than the costs prior to Scale. I'm convinced if we were a larger district that the savings would be tremendous and I wouldn't hesitate to renew. In our specific situation, it may be more feasible to pay per incident.
With the knowledge and usage of solutions from VMware and Microsoft offering more compelling cloud integrated options it makes it more compelling in many environments which I consult. XenServer is a good product and fits the bill in many smaller environments but as clients look to the cloud or a hybrid cloud it can in some cases make it a bit more difficult.
Everything you need to do is point-and-click easy. If you are the kind of admin who wants to edit every config file and endlessly customize your environment, then Scale may not be for you. On the other hand, if you just want it to work really well, and do what they told you it will do, then Scale is the ideal system.
XenServer is a good product in its use and probably free if you have the right Citrix licenses already. However, it does require specific knowledge to manage, which makes it harder to manage if you don't have that knowledge in house.
It's been a little problematic in the past at larger VDI deployments requiring a bit more care and feeding than other vendors. But the latest releases (6.5.x) have brought about huge improvements in the stability and availability.
We had one need for support post-setup, and the person who answered the phone was the support person I needed. No transfer, no level one, and our accents were similar enough that we understood each other easily. The problem was actually in my switch, not with Scale, but the support person still assisted me and got the entire cluster up and running again in under 30 minutes. They are truly a partner not just a vendor.
The staff I've worked with are very knowledgeable or able to get a very well articulated and capable support team member on the phone or helping them if necessary and they always want to ensure the best experience possible for you on the platform. The ability for the support team to reach out to hardware vendors for assistance is a nice plus too.
Part of a training for certification to become a trainer for Citrix included an in-person training with a Master CCI. The XenServer training at this time was pretty simplified due to the product primarily being installed however you did have to work with it and mildly configure the system.
Haven't given it a real go with any online training however there are some options out there. I have taught a course following Citrix material for XenDesktop which leverages XenServer and it is pre-built so not the best for XenServer specifically for installation but configuration is mildly touched on
The implementation was very easy. We had Scale support on standby and they were ready and eager to help if needed. The process went so fast the employees in the organization did not even know it was done.
Ensure you review the HCL (hardware compatibility list) and reach out to the hardware vendors to ensure they support the platform and in case they have documentation that can be followed for the implementation. Also ensure the prerequisites are completed prior to implementation so that as few unexpected delays occur as you can control.
As mentioned previously, not having to worry about the compatibility between your hardware, hypervisor, and VM OS is a great help. On the downside, there is less ability to get deep in the weeds with your own system. Much of the Scale HyperCore OS is locked down intentionally, which prevents technical users from having much insight on broad error messages without support intervention.
In the scheme of the real world, Citrix Hypervisor is used much less than the other two main competing products; MS Hyper-V and VMWare vSphere. So, choosing Citrix Hypervisor for your organization comes down to whether you are comfortable going with a lesser-used product. All 3 products offer hardware layered hypervisor installation which means no OS overhead headaches. That is usually positive but in some cases, with very small shops, the OS layer is needed to host other workloads so Hyper-V running on Windows is the better choice. We run both MS Hyper-V and Citrix Hypervisor and we chose the Citrix product for our testbed environment since any risk of running the less public supported product was lessened by not being in full production.
HC3 is one of the best products I have purchased for our district. It is unbelievably reliable to the point that they shoot themselves in the foot on support contracts.
The servers latest versions have made massive improvements to scalability. But from past experience there have been issues when running workloads for extended periods of time without reboot on the hosts. I would need to run similar workloads on the 6.5 release which has changed much of the bottlenecks or issues so I'd imagine its far more capable now, Perhaps able to stand near the best in the market.
Xenserver is easy to learn. We paid for support only for installation and deployment in the first three years, and now our team has the knowledge to solve most problems.
Low CAPEX if you have a team that uses open source software day by day.
But paid support is necessary to solve critical problems. The open source community is not enough. Actually, we have difficulty solving some bugs without paying for support.
Medium OPEX if you have a team that uses open source software day by day.