VMware vSAN Reviews

The primary use case is bringing redundancy into our plants for failover. It has been performing great.

The most valuable feature is the flexibility, the ability to move the machines around without hesitation.

The UI could certainly be better. The inside into what's actually going on with vSAN would be nice to know.

There have been a few issues, but VWware support has been tremendous in resolving them, so it's been good.

Scalability is easy to do. It's just drop-and-add and you're good.

The process with technical support is pretty good. Escalation up to the top-tier engineers is really good. We have a direct path there. There are no problems with tech support.

We probably already reached our ROI aftertwo and a half years.

Make sure your storage network is strong. But I would recommend vSAN.

It's a pretty solid product now that's it's at 6.5 Update 2. I know that it's going to get better, but right now I'm pretty happy with where we're at. I would rate it at seven out of ten. Nothing's perfect. There's always room for improvement.

It is precisely the possibility of being able to extend the capacities of the cluster of storage and calculation by the simple addition of one or more physical server which makes us lean on this solution in a secure way.

Moreover, with the storage policy, we were able to create different security policies depending on the virtual machines according to their needs for performance or availability.

The most important functionality is the ability to extend cluster storage and cluster computing power securely without loss of data. Also, the ability to set up an extended cluster on multiple sites in a much simpler and easier way than with a traditional storage solution.

This product is usable in many cases. It can be used for a wide range of applications.

It is also possible, for example, to parameterize a stretch cluster at the very least without going to a costly solution based on conventional storage, such as MetroCluster, or another solution of the same level.

No, for the moment, we have not had any unpleasantness related to stability from the time the technical prerequisites are met (hardware in the VMware Compatibility Guide, par example), as well as best practice to design.

No. It's no problem. To be honest, we have not upgraded any vSAN infrastructure to date.

I just had to increase the capacity of a cluster in production by a simple addition of hosts, from the moment the compatibility with the existing one has been checked, there are no problems.

Adding this very simply by drag and drop from the host to the vSAN cluster, beforehand, the host must be placed in maintenance mode. Then, we have more than to add the HDD and SSD to the cluster vSAN in place -- either they are claimed automatically or manually. It all depends on the cluster configuration.

I have never had to contact VMware technical support.

No, I didn’t use other solutions previously, because converged solutions are new technologies and I knew VMware Technology's reputation. But, I am developing other competencies, especially with Nutanix Technology.

From the moment you're used to the VMware vSphere Web Client interface, there are no problems.

The activation is really simple, since it is done with a simple click if one can stay at the level of the parameters of the cluster VMware vSphere.

Then, depending on the number of hosts in the cluster, it will be possible to define a certain number of Fault Domains, that is to say, a quantity of permissible hosts losses, for example.

Moreover, depending on the amount of RAM available in each host and the amount of SSD, we can define one or more Disk Group, as well as host more or fewer objects. But this is more a question of design, which must intervene upstream of course.

The biggest difficulty lies in the design of the solution in order to be closer to the Service-Level Agreement of the company. There are a lot of possibilities according to the number of fault domain one wishes to have, if one makes vSAN on a site or multi-site, the degree of protection of virtual machines, etc,

Basically, vSAN is a license in addition to that of the classic VMware Vsphere, which is also mandatory.

The easiest way is to get closer to VMware directly; it's much simpler and easier.

Yes, at the time, like everyone else, we looked at the classic option, storage bay with SSD caches, but the prices were not necessarily interesting.

Moreover, it requires knowing all the management consoles and specificities related to particular types of storage, network, and infrastructure.

With the use of VMware vSAN, we have not had this worry, since by mastering the VMware vSphere Web Client, I manage all from a single interface, and it is very simple.

Today, I am looking at Nutanix products, and other VxRAIL, and the goal is to identify a concurrent product which can interest us.

Test the product before implementation to see if it fits your needs. Above all, be careful with technical prerequisites and other technical constraints.

To be accompanied by the pre-sales of editor would be the simplest.

Most importantly, the interface is simple, but it is clear that bad handling can have unfortunate consequences.

A simple example: I lose a node in a cluster vSAN, which is also used as a cluster HA. I lose not only the storage part, which is not necessarily serious (depending on the configuration of the vSAN cluster), but on the other hand, I lose also a node of Compute, which can make things complicated quickly.

Previously, we couldn’t consolidate more workloads on different types of storage. Now with VSAN, we have the ability to virtualize across multiple data centers.

It's currently doing everything we've ask of it and it meets all our needs right now. To be honest, I don’t think too much about the future of the product or what we might need it to do as our requirements change.

It's got good stability - 10/10.

It's got good scalability - 10/10.

N/A

They are good – the response time is quick. You pay for it, but they are good.

No previous solution was used.

It was simple and straightforward.

We've implemented it both on our own and with a vendor team, and it's straightforward with both.

No other options were looked, but peer reviews are important. My peer reviews are usually on social media channels, but it's important.

Product knowledge is the most important criteria we look for when selecting a vendor.

Try it and evaluate it – it's not a fit for every company, but you should at least do an evaluation to see if it is a fit.

Getting rid of sharing storage, especially VSAN 6. That would be even better than having an all-flash array.

I hear a lot of issues of stability whenever you go to maintenance, but people who are having spectacular experiences are not speaking the loudest so it can be hard to tell.

I haven’t looked at configuration maximums but it seems like you can scale it up pretty hard in terms of clusters with vSphere 6.

In general, VMware customer support is world class. Response time is really quick – you get connected to experts much faster than in other companies, like Microsoft for example.

All I've seen is community support, especially from bloggers and community experts. I haven’t had any experience.

It's not very different than vSphere 3. If you're comfortable with VMware it’s straightforward. From what Ive seen, it’s a simple install once you have all the hardware. I have heard you have to tweak it performance wise.

Support is up there in the top five things to look at. If you can call, have online communities, easy access to articles. I would also add that if you can get through to someone who has deep knowledge of the product quickly.

Stability, the issue that we have run into is that they are fly-by-night brand new startups and you can get stranded without support.

You need to vet the company, they need to be around in a few weeks to help you. Also, peer reviews are very important – invaluable. Salesmen will tell you everything, we look at whitepapers and vendor supplied information. Google is your friend.

All of our customers are either doing virtual storage on the cloud, or they're trying to extend their on-prem storage solution into the cloud. Our typical use case is providing features in the cloud that are typically on-premise, and that includes storage as well. For example, we might have vSAN on-prem storage that the workloads are accessing, and we want to extend it to the cloud to start spanning workloads out there. 

Most customers have a hybrid setup, with some of their infrastructure on-prem and some on the cloud. Other customers are getting out of the data center business altogether and moving everything into the cloud.

There is a lot that VMware could improve from a marketing perspective. The cloud is still new for many people, so extending storage should be effortless. It shouldn't be so complicated to extend the storage so workloads can access it no matter where they go. 

When you're moving a workload, you don't want to worry about whether the storage will be there or not. Ideally, that should be easily replicated and extended to a cloud environment. We have a lot of vendors trying to extend their on-prem infrastructure seamlessly. That could be workloads. It could be extending the virtual hardware to on-prem storage or the physical storage to virtual storage in the cloud. Everything should be easy for customers to consume and configure, but some of this stuff is still pretty complex because it's so new.

I've been using vSAN for about five years.

I think vSAN's stability is good. It's an underlying solution for both on-prem and in the cloud, especially the VMC on AWS stuff too. VMware has been around for a long time, so it's pretty stable.

All the vendors are working on making the setup more straightforward. Things are becoming a little more scripted. More automation and installations where you don't have to check every box are always good.

I rate VMware vSAN nine out of 10. 

We are a solution provider and VMware vSAN is one of the software-defined storage products that we propose to our customers. Most of the use cases that we see from our customers are where they need to utilize their own hardware. When the environment grows then they buy additional storage.

This product has very good performance when it comes to virtualization storage and works well with solutions such as SAP HANA, Exadata, Hadoop, and Big Data Analytics.

The most valuable feature is the integration with vSphere.

The deduplication and compression work well. 

One of the benefits of using this solution is that when you need additional storage, you just add it.

More focus has to be put on deduplication and compression with a hybrid architecture. The reason is that some customers need to have a more cost-effective solution so they don't want to implement all-flash. As such, they need to use a hybrid environment.

I have been working with VMware vSAN for more than ten years, from when vSAN first began.

This is a very reliable product.

It is easy to deploy additional machines when you need them for your workload.

vSAN can be expanded up to 96 hosts.

The support is very good and they respond quickly.

The initial setup is very straightforward. The length of time required for deployment depends on the number of nodes that it will be installed in. The typical setup takes from one week to two weeks.

The pricing vSAN is very expensive. Enterprise customers can customize their licenses according to their own needs and budget.

There is a cloud offering of this solution but our customers always choose the on-premises version. Most of our customers do not use vSAN as a standalone solution but rather, as part of a hyper-converged infrastructure. We normally propose its use with a product like VxRail and my advice is not to implement it standalone.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use VMware vSAN in a private cloud. We deploy company (customers') applications using the application servers in VMware. We have about 10,000+ users using it.

[We deployed it for our customer]

Being able to deploy multiple applications with virtual servers is the most valuable for us. 

I think it needs to be more cost-effective if customers already have existing SAN to compare with.

We have used VMware vSAN for four years. We are using version 6.5 of vSAN.

We have not had much of a problem so I would say it is very stable.

Good.

We have good support and meet SLA.

We switched from traditional deployment to HCI in order to scale and ease management to cope with a large number of applications

The initial setup was easy and straightforward. We had no issues. It took us about a month for installation and configuration.

N/A

Customer also considered Nutanix.

VMware vSAN may not be the right solution for everyone or for every solution. There might be more solutions that you want to consider depending on your issues of application deployment at hand.  So you have to look at your own factors and compare solutions thoroughly before you make a big decision. I would rate VMware vSAN at an eight on a scale of ten.

The primary use case is for VDI. In fact, we have created what's called a virtual research desktop with VDI, which is insulated because we're dealing with HIPAA data. I think it has performed pretty well.

I like the fact that I've got some degree of redundancy built in and, of course, the performance is great.

It would be much improved if we could somehow integrate a better backup with it. Right now, we're using Veeam and it's okay, but I would like more of a VDP vSAN solution. That would be excellent. The VDP, at least the last time we looked at, it was just not quite there.

I was a little bit worried about the stability initially, because I had an experience about three years ago and I wasn't very happy. But so far, it looks pretty good. I'm actually very surprised that its stability has been improved significantly. So far, so good.

I would have liked it to have been more scalable. It's scalable but not as much as, for example, the ScaleIO systems were or the Kaminario. We looked at Kaminario but that was a risky technology, so we didn't want to go there. I think vSAN is okay. It could use a bit more work on the scalability. I think that's key.

I have not had to use technical support myself but my team has. One of the things that I've heard from my team is that, even when they run into significant issues, they have to go through the whole order of support, and they get frustrated. They get a level-one guy or girl, and that person knows less than my team members do, so that's frustrating. When they get to a level-two or level-three, it's okay.

We were using Compellent. I was okay with it, but it wasn't performing as well as I would've liked and, certainly, the expense and scaling the thing was just too expensive. The other issue was that the natural redundancy you can build with vSAN, you can't really build that with Compellent, unless you have at least two of them. With two you can replicate between them, but, again, they are expensive systems.

When selecting a vendor, what's important to me is a partnership. That sums it up. To me, a vendor has to go in with us for the long haul. We can help the vendor and the vendor can help us. We can help each other out. To me, a partnership is key.

So far, we've been able to replace two Compellents which have cost an arm and a leg. And they're just not as performant as the vSAN. So the ROI has been good.

Let's put it this way: I think the VDI/vSAN has replaced quite a few of our desktops or laptops. Over the course of time, give us another year or two, I think the ROI will be very significant.

While vSAN performs pretty well, when we were doing all the performance tests, ScaleIO did pretty well. In fact, it did better than vSAN, but we liked vSAN better because it was more integrated with our VMware environment, obviously. We chose it and we're happy with it.

The hybrid storage strategy is not the best thing you can do; for example, when you're mixing standard drives and flash drives, SSDs. Do all SSDs if you can afford it. 

I give vSAN an eight out of ten. It can stand some improvement, but it's much better than it was three years ago when I looked at it.