vCenter Orchestrator Reviews

The version we use is not updated. 

The solution allows us to manage multiple VMware in a single, vCenter, console. It is very useful.

The solution is easy to use.

I would like to see better performance. 

We have been using vCenter Orchestrator for around six years.

The solution is stable.

I do not have knowledge of the technical support. 

The solution was easy to install. 

The implementation process takes between 30 to 43 minutes. 

When it comes to the deployment, they have an administrator. We will provide them with support should an issue arise. 

We provide the VMware solution to our clients, for which they pay a perpetual license. 

We have around 10 customers making use of the solution.

My recommendation is that one solely go with vCenter.

I rate vCenter Orchestrator as a ten out of ten. 

We recently deployed a SAN in our office and the servers deploy on vCenter Orchestrator.

We also have a wireless deployment for different controllers, and we have many ERD solutions in our office that are hosted on VMware technology.

Many of our older, physical servers are being converted into VMs, and then we use vCenter Orchestrator with them as well.

The most valuable feature is the Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS).

The backup and recovery times are very quick.

The management tools are very good.

I think that vSAN can be improved.

The GUI should be enhanced in the future. 

I have been working with vCenter Orchestrator for probably three years.

vCenter Orchestrator is a stable product.

Scalability has not been an issue. In one project, we have between 2,500 and 3,000 users.

The VMware technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. Including the training that we had from the training center, our deployment took place over about six months.

We evaluated and analyzed several similar products and we selected VMware as being most suitable for our requirements.

My advice for anybody who is considering vCenter Orchestrator is to first collect all of their requirements or the requirements of the client. These are the basic steps and once everything is understood, the products can be properly selected.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I am using this solution as a test for a future project.

vCenter Orchestrator is not in production yet.

The most valuable feature is affinity rules.

Using this solution requires a lot of experience.

I have been using this solution for one month.

At this moment I can't find another solution that is better than vCenter Orchestrator.

Haveri might be better in Malware.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the free movement of data between machines. It is the most cost-effective method for moving data between machines.

The licensing is expensive and should be improved.

The solution is stable.

We use it to prime the machines, and it's very good.

Apart from the times, we are doing the virtual relocations and it is scalable.

The initial setup is easy.

It can take half a day to set up two to four servers.

This solution is expensive and the licensing is more attractive for Haveri.

Even though it is expensive I would still rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I primarily use the solution to run my monitoring tools. For the universities I work with, the primary use is to run everything and anything.

The solution's ability to template and easily implement are the most valuable features. It offers good replication as well. 

The solution needs to integrate with Cloud facilities like AWS and Azure. Containerization, which I believe they are working on, needs to improve too.

The solution is pretty stable. As long as you look after the boxes it's running on, and ensure they're connected, then you're fine. We don't plan to increase usage at this time.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. We have about 100 or so users on the solution currently.

I've never really had to use technical support, so I don't have any experience with them.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

Deployment took less than a day. However, I did not handle the implementation. We only require two people for maintenance.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

For the deployment, we start with the VR Automation, it's part of it.

The most valuable feature is that this solution is complete, and you don't need any add-ons.

The UI should be more simplified so that fewer tech users are required.

The workflow can be complicated. I would like a simpler workflow, and I would like it to be more friendly to use.

In the next release, to make it easier to write the workflows, I would l like to see more HTML GUIs.

This solution is stable.

It's running automatically, we don't touch it, everything that we are doing, we do through the VR automation, not through the Orchestrator.

This solution is scalable.

We have not contacted technical support because we haven't needed to.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment was part of the VR Automations, it only took thirty minutes.

We do not have a business relationship with VCenter Orchestrator, we are customers.

To do a day to day job, you already have everything that you need in this solution. Add-ons are not necessary. This is why it is a good solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for automation.

We have an on-premises deployment, and we do not plan on using the cloud.

vCenter Orchestrator is easy to use.

The interface could be improved to bring greater user-friendliness and ease of use.

This is a stable platform.

This solution is scalable.

We have ten users, including system administrators and end-users.

Their technical support engineers were quite capable of dealing with any issues that we have had. Luckily, since the platform is stable enough, we haven’t had to open many cases. There was only one that we had in the initial phase.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

I definitely recommend this solution. As a whole, it is quite good. It is difficult to pick a single aspect that I would recommend. You have to use the whole thing.

From what I have been told, the newer versions have already addressed some of the issues that we have identified. We are planning on upgrading to the most recent version, and I am waiting to see what the differences are.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the on-premise deployment model. 

vCenter is our primary resource for all our U.S. Enterprises. It's the central place for the VMs we are using as our servers. 

Storage has room for improvement. It's a big problem for our solution. The interface also needs improvement, it should be simplified.   

They should integrate more storage systems for the replication. There should be an integrated replication tool. We have two sites and we want to have the data between the sites and all the data replicated. There is no ability to do that now. You have to buy this ability from another vendor.

It's very expensive. The quality of the product is fine, it's good quality but the price is very high.

In the next release, they should have better data synchronization between different brands and hardware so that you can replicate two data stores. VMware should maintain decent replication. There's no synchronization between VMware and different brands. For example, one installment from Dell and one installment from HP should be able to synchronize their data.

It's 100% stable, it's always stable. We haven't had any bugs. The solution works very well and we haven't had any problems.

We haven't needed to contact their technical support. We have to pay for support but it should be free. 

The initial setup was straightforward, it's not complex.

There are not many partners for this solution in our area. We would need to go to Barcelona for that. 

We also looked at Microsoft Hyper-V. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten.