VMware NSX Reviews

It is helping me get an entire blueprint done of the source and the target. I was able to make it into a catalog and can set up anything on the cloud quickly. 

The best part is the blueprint creation where I can create their things and then move on to the target environment.

The price is pretty high and their product stack forces me to use the feature set compared to all the others out there in the market from India. They could do more with cloud management, I need some third-party tools.

I have been using VMware NSX for the past four years.

VMware NSX is a stable solution.

The scalability is not a problem.

It was complex, but we worked on all the templates and now it is easy.

I would recommend getting your case worked out well before you get into any customer environment. When it comes to an out-of-the-box feature set on the website, it is not how it really works. Do the POC before you go into a real-time production implementation. I would rate VMware NSX an eight out of ten.

What I found most valuable is the security offered by VMware NSX. I also like that it is a feature-rich product.

VMware NSX should be able to scale for different customers, even the big ones. Its scalability needs improvement. Stability for it should also be improved.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of this product is for it to have more integration with other public clouds.

I have concerns on the stability of VMware NSX, because it breaks multiple times in customer environments, especially when you scale it across a big data center.

VMware NSX still has a lot of scalability limitations, and needs improvement on how it can scale.

The support for VMware NSX has not been good recently. Some of their experienced staff have left the company, and that has impacted all their business units, including support.

VMware NSX is straightforward to install and configure, but for a user who's new to it, the product can be somewhat complex to understand, though not too complex.

The pricing model for VMware NSX is good, especially because it has a lot of features.

VMware NSX is a good product. It's the best solution in terms of the Enterprise FTN.

I'm quite competent on this product, because I've been working on it for a long time, so I find it easier to use.

I'm rating VMware NSX nine out of ten.

We use NSX as a security solution. The solution is deployed on-premise. We are using version 6.4 of NSX. 

The solution is easy to use and is good for management control.

It isn't easy to deploy.

I have been using VMware NSX for almost 10 years.

We currently have 2,000 users.

The solution is scalable.

I haven't used technical support. If I have a problem, I find out what the best practice is.

We previously used a different solution for server virtualization, but we switched to NSX.

The solution was easy to install but not easy to deploy. 

We have a technical team. The time it takes and the amount of people needed for maintenance depends on the solution that is deployed. Sometimes it is easy, and sometimes it takes more than one day.

The subscription is on a yearly basis.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

This product is a software-defined data center with a cloud-native approach. We mainly use it for application migration of some of the architecture to containerized solutions.

The management platform is great. I really like the management dashboard, the tailor-made assurance, the telemetry, and the ease of integration with all other solutions of VMware, such as vSphere. They also integrate well with other third-party security platforms. It's very easy to give an integration of the cloud tenant of NSX. It's very easy to build and migrate a cloud project.

It's very complex. However, I don't work directly with it typically.

We had started two projects for integration with OpenShift and OpenStack with NSX. It was declared by VMware that this is possible, however, the process is very tricky. The full integration was delayed to wait for a new official release. I don't know the actual stage, as this is something that happened more than a year or two ago. It was the beginning of the pandemic. In any case, the integration with OpenShift, the open-source cloud platform, at the time was in need of work and was (and remains) something required from our customers. 

They have to work more and more on the integration for public cloud services and have cyber security platform integration.

I've been using the solution for about five years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It seems to scale. However, we don't have enough data in order to say how much clients scale out or the performance when a company is trying to scale out an NSX-T environment. We are not a cloud provider. We don't have a cloud environment to test it.

In terms of who is using it on our side, we have about five to seven people who have the operational capability on NSX-T. 

In our organization, we use only a small NSX-T cluster. We have a bigger one for our lab. I can't speak to the usage of our customers where we deployed it.

We're pretty satisfied with technical support.

We previously used OpenShift together with OpenStack. It's a different platform. One is open-source and the other is a commercial platform with vendor support and established customers.

The initial setup is very simple. It's not overly complex.

All the VMware platforms are really easy to implement. They require knowledge, of course. However, if you follow the procedure, the output is good.

The deployment itself doesn't take more than two or three days. 

That said, we have knowledgeable workers that have done NSX and the previous release (not the NSX-T). They have done deployments several times. That's why, each time, it's really easy to do. If you have to do that in a customer production environment, it will take say no more than one week including both the deployment in production and the training for the customer.

We have three people that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. 

I can handle the implementation myself. We also have trained people inside our organization. We don't need the assistance of integrators or consultants.

I can't speak to the exact licensing costs of the solution.

Most deployments are on-premises or via a private cloud in the case of enterprise clients.

We started several deployments with NSX-T version 3. I can't speak to which version we are on currently.

It works and it is powerful in terms of governance, telemetry, ease of use, and ease of deployment. The operation is very simple. Of course, you have to train someone in order to use it effectively. It's very easy to find training. For us, it's good to have a third party with enough experience in order to support other projects where we don't have enough people in order to do that.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Have used this solution to implement PAS (PCF) and have also used it for Native Datacenter networking as part of DC refresh.

Have worked on multiple organizations with VMware NSX. It heavily depends on the use case of the solution and how well you are able to use all the features of the product. When using for K8s container platforms or a networking backed for on premises cloud using a CMP(VRA, VIO) then VMware NSX is the best SDN solution but If an organization is not able to use NSX to its full potential (Switching, Routing, Load-balancing, Firewall, IDS, IPS etc.) then its not worth it.

Logical routing, switching are  overall good feature of this SDN solution especially when using CMP's and distributed firewall is very attractive features for micro-segmentation.

In rare situation there are  mismatch in the control plane data and dataplane data i.e. the details and what you actually see on the transport note. This is rare but time consuming to troubleshoot . Additionally, there could be better integration between VMware Cloud Federation (VCF) and NSX-T. Currently, there are some limitations, for example, VCF allows just one overlay transport zone. Also there is not upgrade path from VCF 3(NSX-T 2.5.x) to VCF 4 (NSX-T 3.x)

I have been using the solution for approximately five years.

The stability is good and is getter better after each new release.

The solution is scalable. In the 2.4 version, the controller got merged to create the cluster manager, it now is even better.

The technical support was pretty good, but recently I have had quite a few bad experiences with the support. But that really depends on the account and geographic location and multiple other factors

We have using Cisco ACI  and it is a strong competitor. When you are not using NSX NCP then everything that you need from SDN prospective can be done in Cisco ACI except for the distributed firewall at the vnic level.

The initial installation feels at first a little complex because there are a lot of components, but when you get the understanding after a short time, it is fine.

I was not involved in the purchase of the solution but I hear it is on the expensive side. That is why quite a few companies are moving towards open source because there are multiple solutions such as NginX, that can do the load balancing, and Calico and Flannel can do your logical switching routing.

If there is already VMware environment then it makes sense to use NSX-V, NSX-T as it can be integrated with other VMware automation products. But if approach it towards opensource then other SDN solutions like flannel, Nginx etc. can be evaluated depending on the use case.

If you are wanting to implement this solution I would advise if your project supports it then definitely. You should have a solid use case, the solution is rich in feature sets and you should use all of them. Then only is it worth the money, if you are just buying it for your logical switching and routing, then it is not worth it.

I rate VMware NSX a seven out of ten.

The solution is a software-defined firewall. You can set the policies and filter the incoming traffic from our site to our network. Any hostile request coming from an external network will get blocked. 

The most valuable and unique feature of the solution is Micro-segmentation achieving better security, through enabling security architects to divide data centre into different segments. One being the VMS withing the on-premises, the other one on the Cloud.

There could be an improvement in regards to security. This solution cannot migrate all assets smoothly and continuously, for example, the host

Sometimes the physical hosts are not able to be converted into virtual ones, which needs to be fixed. 

I have been using the solution since 2012.

We have many users in our organization. There are approximately 50 administration and more than 300 users using this solution.

We also use NSX-T alongside this solution. NSX started with micro-segmentation and the other option is based on a different architecture with some differences.

The installation is straightforward, it took a couple of hours.

The deployment happened base on the deployment topology that is defined by the security architect. I did the deployment by myself. 

This solution requires a licence. 

I have used other firewalls in the past. 

I recommend this solution and I am going to continue using it in the future.

I rate VMware NSX a nine out of ten. 

This is a product for network security, and network management. 

We don't use it at the production level. I am conducting a PoC.

We are using this in our testing data center and not in our live data center. This infrastructure contains many security devices from other vendors such as Palo Alto.

We are also using vSAN and vCenter.

The most valuable features are stability and low cost.

There are always issues integrating with Cisco.

Switching is always a big problem for us because our switch is not supported.

If the integration was more open, then it would be good.

I have been using VMware NSX for three years.

We are using the latest version, and we already want to upgrade it.

It's a stable solution. We plan to continue using it.

There are three users in our organization who are using this solution.

VMware technical support is good but we find that the Cisco support is better for us.

This product is better for network security than Cisco ASA and Firepower.

The initial setup is straightforward but still takes time.

It takes longer to deploy than Cisco products. It takes between three and seven days to deploy,

We had a team of five for deployment. Two are from our company and three were from the vendor.

We have a license.

It is an expensive product, but cheaper than some competing solutions.

It's a good product.

This is a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The Environment was an active-active Tier-0 multi-site deployment (primary/secondary).

It contained compute and management clusters, and a small number of transport ESXi nodes (between five and six) v6.7u2, vCenter 6.7u2, AD.

The primary use case was to implement micro-segmentation and route production workloads through NSX-T via BGP. Our customer needed assurances that BGP routing within NSX-T would be efficient.

We implemented a very simple architecture and setup site with one NSX Manager as the primary source. This was a financial customer, thus security was the main item.

We had to explain to the customer that NSX-T deployment and micro-segmentation were two different projects explicitly.

NSX-T has allowed us to implement micro-segmentation in the customer's environment seamlessly (zero-trust). We have also looked at deploying Tufin or Gardicore, ReSTNSX as alternative tools. The Environment was an active-active Tier-0 multi-site deployment

The organization was able to begin scaling out its production workloads and clusters.

From a security standpoint, the customer was able to better secure critical workloads while routing L2/L3 worked normally, giving them more confidence that they would be ready for any potential security incident mitigation or outage (DR).

The most valuable features are:

• N-VDS Geneve encapsulation L2/L3
• Less need for the VM to hit the TOR switch to communicate with VMs on the same ESXi host/segment (logical switch)
• Micro-segmentation capabilities/tagging
• NSX-T dashboard/compute usage across the configuration allows a quick view
• The NSX-T configuration screens are fairly easy to navigate but they might need to simplify them a bit in future versions.
• Very extensive detailed configuration items can be set in Uplink profiles to better map pNICs
• Edge TEP and Host TEP tunnel config and troubleshooting is much more understandable and verifiable

Traffic flow introspection topology visibility is definitely needed because at the moment, NSX-T lacks in this area.

A hardware scan of the ESXi host for possible incompatibilities should be added to NSX-T/vSphere, as it would allow us to know in advance, for example, if a pNIC is not compatible with a version of vSphere before moving forward with an NSX-T deployment. 

It needs a better, integrated migration tool. Something like RestNSX with more elaborate capabilities from a troubleshooting perspective and pre-migration perspective would be an improvement.

I have used this solution version most recently, as it has not been out that long.

Many companies are moving to v3 and v3.01

N-VDS will be depreciated in newer versions and integrated within the standard VDS

From a recoverability standpoint, if designed correctly and perhaps if VMware SRM is integrated with NSX-T, it would help the stability of workload availability.

From a routing perspective, NSX-T must be designed for redundancy with cross/overlapping uplinks from the edge nodes to your L3 upstream devices. Routing will be more reliable with default routes in place. Hardware compute and compatibility with the solution is critical for good communication via the  nsx overlay network.  Overall this solution is very scalable

NSX-T is extremely scalable as a solution. Make sure that you plan your IP pools accordingly in advance if you plan to add many transport ESXi nodes in the future.

VMware Global support for NSX-T/V is exceptional.

We have never used any other solution. NSX is the premier product in this space.

The initial setup will go smoothly if the design of the solution was done correctly. 

NSX-T can be complex if the discovery phase was not granular enough.

We implemented it with an in-house team.

Customers will better be able to determine ROI once they have been running the solution for a year or so. How much they will have from the Capex perspective will have to be calculated.

My advice is to make sure that you properly scope the project from both hardware and network requirements. NSX-T can be complicated if it is not designed correctly.

Some customers are evaluating Gardicore vs NSX.

Gardicore is a great tool for micro-segmentation only. It can fill in many gaps that NSX-T misses with its native micro-seg capabilities.

An NSX-T solution requires a solid understanding of routing/switching, IP pools, local egress, and solution design to be successful. It takes a team of both VMware and Cisco folks to collaborate to get it done right the first time.

As a customer, make sure you are hiring the best resources.