VMware vSAN Reviews

• Integration with VMware vSphere
• It’s simple to manage
• It’s a relatively inexpensive for a SAN solution
• Good performance based on testing

We just started implementation, so it's hard to give our perspective as we're still doing our evaluation. We purchased the product, and we have ten-fold service on it.

If it works out well, storage is our most important element of our infrastructure. We're looking for a stable and high performing solution and think this is it.

I'd like to see support for iSCI. Right now it’s all internal protocols, and they promise it in the next version. They need to support more types of hardware – the list is too narrow.

It's stable, but it's really picky on the hardware. We knew that going in, but the scale was a surprise, not truly as agnostic as we thought it would be. They have a list, and if you deviate a bit, then it won’t support the environment. We had an issue where we deviated slightly, so we probably will have to follow their hardware compatibility list.

Very scalable, it's one of the reasons we bought it. They are in v2.0, and we feel like now it’s mature.

Support is generally good, but a little slow sometimes. You need to stick to their compatibility list if you want their full support.

We were using EMC and we knew we needed something new. Cost is important to look at, because we're nonprofit, as well as the integration with the other VMware products, and the stability of the product too.

Setup is very straightforward.

It’s a good solution – the trend is going towards converged infrastructure. It's all policy based – you can set general policy and then trust VSAN to do everything else.

Our customers use this product when they don't want to deploy an expensive storage device but they're looking for good storage technology. I'm a system integrator.

This is a mature, easy-to-use, and easy-to-scale type of technology. When a customer wants network security and integration of NSX technology, vSan is a good solution.

I'd like to see a simplification of the upgrading process. For now, I have to verify each and every component before upgrading. If there were a technology to check the compatibility without the complexity, it would be helpful to users.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Whenever I need support from VMware, I get very good support from the team.

The initial setup is somewhat complex. It involves checking hardware compatibility before buying it and installing the VMware components. One person can deploy an entire environment in a day.

Licensing costs are more or less on par with other similar products. 

It's important to check the compatibility before deploying. This is a good solution and I rate it nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution on Microsoft Windows Active Directory and loads of applications. Most of our stuff, over 90% of our servers, are on VMware.

The ease of use is great.

The initial setup and upgrade process was pretty straightforward. 

Technical support is great.

The updating process could be easier. It's just a bit more complex. I don't update very often. It's something I do infrequently, and therefore, we haven't got that much experience with it. That said, this Lifecycle looks better. There's a new feature called Lifecycle, which is dealing with the issue sI mainly have.

I haven't done an update yet with the new system. My understanding is it's an improvement from what I can see. 

Guests that are pinned to hosts for various reasons, for antivirus or the backups should be able to be reported that they are being pinned, and also reported if things have snapshots. When you're doing certain things, they don't work so well if you've got snapshots on or if you've got things that are pinned. They can't move. When you're doing things, if there was something that was going to stop it from working that's within VMware, these should automatically be checked. 

The stability of the product is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good.

The scalability is quite good. I don't know any others, to be honest. I've never used Hyper-V or any of the others. It's quite a de facto standard so I'm happy enough. I'm not informed as to how difficult or easy it is compared to others.

We'd like to expand in the future. We've tried to utilize it for everything. We can't do that at the moment due to licensing. Not the VMware licensing. It's more due to Oracle.

Technical support is very good. We have two places to get assistance. We have this vendor who supplied the new VMware and installed it and converted it, and we got another supplier who maintains everything and they're both very good. I'd recommend both of them.

The last setup was an upgrade. It's not so complex as we had to upgrade an existing system. It's not overly complex. I'd rate the process at a four out of five. 

The issues we had were mainly due to other things like the backup and data transfer. It wasn't actually to do so much with VMware itself and the other things. It was the transfer of data from one storage device to another and VMware wouldn't let us do it.

The deployment took about two weeks. 

We had a third party do it. They are a lot more experienced than us so we paid them for all the new hardware and we paid for them for the engineering to fit it and install it. We paid for them to convert from the old system to the new system - from the old VMware to the new VMware.

Our experience with them was very good. They were extremely helpful.

I don't deal with the licensing. I can't speak to the costs involved.

I work for the portrait gallery and we just serve our own people. We don't sell to the outside. I don't use it for outside organizations.

I'd advise potential new users to ask around for different suppliers who do it, just do a proper tender on supplying, and just to watch out for, if you're upgrading, how your backup treats the upgrade. That's a problem we had. We have Veeam, which is VMware, however, we made a mistake on using a new machine and trying to move stuff across and Veeam made it more complicated, which we didn't realize would happen. It's caused some issues.

Our experience was good, however, I haven't got enough experience with the outside vendors who do this as I only work for this company and we only do the upgrade once every three years or so. That said, I'd advise users to go with someone who's got a good background or reputation. 

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

We primarily use VMware vSAN for ERP, for the assisting environment. The main environment in my company does not depend on VMware—for the production environment and operations, we work with Nutanix. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it is stable. 

This solution could be improved by having more than one controller for the environment. VMware depends on one controller for the whole environment, whereas Nutanix has one controller for each node. Because there is only one controller with VMware, if there was any drop, then the whole environment would stop working. In Nutanix, I have five nodes—there is one controller for each node and it depends on a virtual controller—so if the controller of any node is down, the whole environment will still work. 

I have been using VMware vSAN for three years. 

This solution is very, very stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

In our organization, there are around 1,000 users of VMware, including some servers and the self-service website. We have plans to increase our usage. 

VMware's support could be faster. We don't currently have a contract with technical support because we didn't make a new one for the support license. 

I previously used Hyper-V from Microsoft, but there were many issues and lots of troubleshooting. 

The installation is easy. My team worked on the installation and, for our company, we only need one engineer for deployment and maintenance. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

I have two environments: Nutanix AHV and VMware. We use the Nutanix environment more than the VMware environment. 

I rate VMware vSAN an eight out of ten. For virtualization, I would recommend Nutanix over VMware. 

While we have some applications running on VMware, mostly we are providing and proposing these solutions to our clients.

I have one client, for example, that is running the CRM and accounts and manufacturing applications on VMware and they're using HP infrastructure for them. They have some SQL databases they're running on that and some back-office applications, and also an Extend Server as well.

The migration capabilities are a very useful aspect of the solution. 

The way it handles failovers is very good. 

The imaging is helpful.

Right now, VMware is number one in the virtual space.

The initial setup is very easy.

The management is very straightforward. It's an extremely user-friendly product.

It integrates very well with other products. 

The scalability is very good and the solution is stable and reliable.

So far, everything is okay.

Currently, there aren't any shortcomings to discuss or missing features that we worry about. 

This product is very expensive. 

I've used the solution for a long time. I'd used VMware since it come out in the '90s. It's been decades. 

I have found the stability to be great. There aren't bugs. It doesn't glitch. There aren't issues around it crashing or freezing. It's reliable. 

The scalability has been great. If you need to expand it, you can do so. 

Technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. I've been happy with their level of service when we've needed them. We are satisfied. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple. There shouldn't be an issue if a company wants to set it up. 

If you have, for example, 100 VMs, you only need one person to manage it. It requires very little maintenance or overhead in terms of staff. 

The solution can be expensive. However, if you are a big company, such as a telco, likely you can get a good deal on pricing. That said, being so big, likely the cost won't be a deterrent. 

We are partners and also a solution provider.

The solution is great. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten. I'd advise other people to give it a try. 

We plan to switch products since the hardware nowadays is a little bit outdated and we need to scale up a bit. We are looking for better performance and storage. This is why we are examining other solutions, including VxRail. 

We have been using VMware vSAN for at least 10 years.

The solution is quite stable. We have encountered some minor issues but, overall, are quite satisfied.

While the solution is scalable, I feel that this can be better. 

Although we have not made much use of the technical support, we found them to be good and helpful in finding solutions. 

The solutions we previously used were dissimilar to the current one. We had VMware for an extremely long time, at least 15 or 16 years. First, there was VMware servers, followed by us building and setting up VMware custom within a couple of servers.

I feel the pricing to be reasonable. We pay monthly. 

We have 50 users making use of the solution in our organization.

I rate VMware vSAN as an eight out of ten. 

We are service providers. 

vSan is a system with defined storage, it doesn't work on a public cloud. It works and is built in your private cloud.

The most valuable features are Erasure Coding, Deduplication, and Compression, and the advancement in stretching regarding replication.

They should provide Deduplication and Compression over the hybrid drives. The Deduplication and Compression are locally only on all flash drives.

When you compare with Nutanix, you will find the performance in the Deduplication and Compression is over hybrid and on the flash drives. This feature is needed in vSan.

I have been working with VMware vSan for five years.

We are using the latest version.

VMware vSAN is very stable.

It's scalable up to 96 nodes. We have over 500 users in our company who are using this solution.

VMware technical support is remarkable.

We did not work with a similar software preciously. We were working with traditional solutions such as storage, and servers, but not software-defined storage like vSAN.

The vSAN is very easy to deploy.

To deploy a full cluster in a data center, can take four hours.

We are all engineers. We don't need a team to maintain this solution, as everyone services themselves.

The price could be lower. vSAN has many versions with standard and advanced including Enterprise and Enterprise Plus. Regarding the Enterprise and the Advanced, it could be lower.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have around 70 to 100 VMs, and we use VMware vSAN to store our data. We have a lot of daily data.

It is easy to work with, easy to handle, and easy to manage.

Its price could be improved. It is too expensive for our clients.

I have been using this solution for around a year.

It is quite stable. 

We didn't increase our storage.

Their technical support is really helpful. They are very efficient. I didn't have any problem.

Its initial setup is not difficult.

It is too expensive.

It is a good solution to implement if you have a lot of data. It is quite stable and not too difficult to manage.  

I would rate VMware vSAN a seven out of ten. It is a good solution, but it is too expensive.