It was only a few months ago that Dell gave Cisco a powerful smack to the face by publicly denouncing the network giants' big Unified Computing System pitch as a vendor lock-in scheme when unveiling a set of servers, storage systems, and third-party network technologies it called an "open" alternative.* Well, Cisco remembers. …
Cisco are at least proving the accusation
That Cisco UCS is simply a ploy to trap customers into the "Cisco Powered...." money pit for a bit longer. Cutting off Dell now that they have found a few customers who actually bought the sales pitch and paid the injurous Cisco markup for commodity servers is not surprising. Cisco can't exist in a commoditised market, they have too much overhead and now that everyone can do scale out Ethernet (oh, sorry, Cisco can't) for big virtualisation platforms, Infiniband etc in horizontal scale out for HPC (sorry Cisco, port density, cost...) and there is a glut of the other device types out there Cisco have to join the IBM / HP game of locking you into a single vendor data centre to carry on milking you.
Don't worry, the bankers will carry on paying taxpayer's money to Cisco and keep them alive...
Why would anyone jump into UCS?
Virtualization is not new.
Paying a premium for commodity servers adds no value.
Cisco does not bring power/cooling or price-performance savings to the market.
I get nothing out of Cisco's server range than I can't already get from HP and Dell. IBM's an also ran, so I don't consider them a competitor. I guess that Cisco's made their switch available to IBM, they don't either.
And from what I know of the architecture, your choices are limited: Cisco switching only, Vmware only (where's Xen and HyperV)?
And why should I upgrade Catalyst switches that are working just fine to replace them with horrendously expensive Nexus gear?