VMware vSAN Reviews

I'm running an application that's running under a virtual machine on vSAN. That vSAN environment is only for this specific application. We didn't only choose vSAN; we chose VMware because of SR-IOV, which is more on the hypervisor level and not on the vSAN storage. It's part of the whole system.

The solution is deployed on-prem.

There are seven users in my organization. They are all in IT roles.

There could be more features with the automatic backup.

I've been using this solution for a year and a half. I'm still using the solution with a bigger environment, not vSAN.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is bad. They pointed me to professional services, and I had to pay someone when I already had the basic support agreement. I think we took the standard support agreement with VMware.

I'm still using a different solution. I only took two servers with vSAN to support one application that needs one feature that only VMware has. If not for that feature, I wouldn't touch VMware.

Now, I'm looking at products like Nutanix, Silver Peak, Flexione, and FortiGate. For products that I choose, I don't need a specialist of that vendor. In VMware, I need a specialist in VMware.

That's the issue I have with VMware. It's not like I can take any IT person, and they will know what to do. I need to make sure he will do the call, get the certificate and time to practice.

Initial setup was complex. I would rate the complexity a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5.

For an experienced IT person, it isn't that complex. But if I compare it to the  competition, Nutanix would be a 1, and VMware would be a 5. If you have never touched Nutanix, VMware is not that complex. But if I compare it to Nutanix, it's complex.

Deployment of VMware vSAN took four days.

We used a third party for deployment. We didn't have a good experience with them.

The person didn't have knowledge in VMware, and we had to pay someone to do the installation, and they said things like, "We need this. We need a certificate. We need another VLAN. We need another number."

The cost is expensive. I purchased two servers. The hardware cost was $19,000. The software cost for these two servers, including the vSAN, was $30,000, which is $11,000 more than the hardware. Then I had to pay another $5,000 for installation and implementation for professional services. In total, it was $54,000 for two vSAN Servers.

I would rate this solution 4 out of 10. 

For my needs on virtual machine and HCI, which is hyperconverged infrastructure, I have another solution that costs less and gives me better features. When it comes to one feature that only VMware supports, I had to pay. They have the patents, and they have things that only they can do. But I work in the telecom world, and we give services to a lot of companies. On my infrastructure, there are more than 80 million people using the infrastructure on a daily basis. Most of it is not VMware, and I'm so happy.

For the last two years, Gartner and even Nutanix have been above VMware.

My advice is to be sure you really need it, as there are other vendors in the market that give good solutions. Nutanix and Hyper-V give a solution that is good for most cases in the market. If I take the business world, 80% of the businesses in the world will be okay with other vendors and they cost less. 

My environment is 26 physical servers that aren't VMware and two physical servers that are VMware.

Previously, we had 400 servers, and only five of them were VMware. When you look in the market, you know the better solution for your needs. No one in the world has been fired or lost their job for purchasing Cisco; it's the name. It's the same with VMware; it's just too expensive.

VMware vSAN is used for virtualization and general-purpose computing. Instead of going for the SAN (storage area network) storage, customers go for VSAN (virtual storage area network). The solution is used for general-purpose computing, production computing, and storage.

Instead of going for SAN storage, customers can use the scale-up and scale-out features of VMware vSAN.

Enterprise customers get discounts on the solution's licensing pricing, but it is too expensive for SMB customers. Maintenance-wise, when the capacity is utilized beyond 60% to 70%, then the time of the upgrade is a little higher compared to the standard SAN storage.

I have been using VMware vSAN for more than five years.

VMware vSAN is a pretty stable solution. We haven't seen any issues with the solution's stability in five to seven years. The customers would face issues if they ignore some key points.

I rate VMware vSAN a nine out of ten for stability.

In terms of scalability, we have to just add the nodes. If you require more computing or storage, you have to add the nodes to the existing cluster. Our clients for VMware vSAN are medium and enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution nine and a half out of ten for scalability.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight or eight and a half out of ten.

The solution's deployment time totally depends on the customer or the deployment guide. However, we can deploy VMware vSAN in a day.

The solution's licensing pricing could be improved. The level of discounts available on the solution's licensing price varies from customer to customer. Enterprise customers get discounts on the solution's licensing pricing, but it is too expensive for SMB customers.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

Our clients are government and private customers working with VMware vSAN in the manufacturing, defense, oil and gas, and ITIS industries. The solution is generally built on top of the virtualization layer with VMware. It's a part of virtualization. The solution's performance and management are pretty easy.

VMware vSAN is tightly integrated with other VMware products because it's a part of vSphere. It is tightly integrated with the virtualization layer. We can integrate and utilize VMware vSAN for other VMware products very easily.

Using VMware vSAN is totally dependent on the customer's use case. A standard three-tier architecture is recommended for customers who want to use a tier-one application for ERP protection. VMware vSAN is recommended to customers with a use case for VDI, general-purpose computing, and test development environments.

Overall, I rate VMware vSAN a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for VDI and SBC Citrix.

With this solution, less time is needed to install three-tiered infrastructure.

The main advantage is that it's all in the box, with VMware vCenter Server product.

Compatibility with the previous version, stability, performance, and upgradeability of the solution with the previous version all need to be improved. 

In future releases of the solution, I would like to see more HCL compatibility lists, less hardware requirements, better performance, and the ability to upgrade from the previous version.

I have known vSAN for five years. We deal with the latest version. 

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It is less stable than Nutanix. 

I would rate the scalability a six out of ten. It is less scalable than Nutanix. 

The customer service and support are poor and not very responsive. We face delays with responses. 

Neutral

We prefer to use Nutanix but if the customer wants to use VMware vSAN, we have no choice.  

The initial setup is very simple. It takes around a few hours to deploy, around two to three hours. It takes more hours than Nutanix takes. 

We do the maintenance for the solution. We have a team of seven engineers for the deployment and maintenance of the solution. 

The hardware price is expensive cause of new vSan 8 Hardware compatibility list. I would rate the licensing model a three out of ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap. 

I would rather prefer Nutanix over this solution. Overall, I would rate vSAN solution a six out of ten. 

The use case is when someone is a fan of VMware. No. They can use this technology when they don't want to have an extra storage library. It's integrated into the VMware server. 

And if the employees are familiar with the VMware environment, it's a good storage solution for VMware.

vSAN is integrated into VMware. So you can manage and configure it within the VMware console. That's good. 

There is room for improvement in vSAN's ability to debug. When it's not working well, debugging becomes quite challenging. Identifying issues when it's lagging or not functioning properly can be difficult.

In future releases, I would like to see the ability to debug as a solution.

Other areas of improvement include pricing and support. 

We have deployed vSAM two times for our customers. 

It's very stable, though slightly less than ideal due to the challenge of debugging.

Scalability is not as simple as expected. While it's okay, there are restrictions and complexities. For instance, you need a minimum number of servers for certain functionalities, making it less flexible to adapt. I don't know the prerequisites listed by VMware that are not allowed. 

Initially, you need to have three servers, for example, when deploying the solution. If you want a backup solution, you need to have three servers for that. And if you want to have a mirror of the room, you need to have three more servers. You can't have just two. You need to have three. So, it's not as simple to expand, adapt, or modify due to these strict requirements.

We have around five customers using vSAN. 

The customer service and support are okay. It is not quite good. The support should be faster and more qualified. 

Neutral

The setup is quite easy. It took us around half a day to deploy the solution.

For the deployment process, first, we needed a VMware installation. Then, we identified servers for this solution. License keys were crucial. After that, we proceeded with the setup and configuration.

We need three engineers for the deployment and maintenance of the solution. 

It's quite expensive, even too expensive.

There are some extra costs, which can be quite pricey. But overall, not too many additional expenses.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I would advise ensuring that the VPN destination is a good one and reliable. VMware-listed prerequisites on the websites are important, and clients should confirm services are good before deployment.

We are using it for a redundant, local front-end environment for our WiFi portal. We're also using it for critical backend services, our DCP instances, and our internal monitoring environments. We have instances inside that system right now.

I believe we are using its latest update.

The flexibility is most valuable. Being able to manage things quickly if something goes wrong is also valuable. Very recently, we had one node that went down due to a power problem, but there was really no major impact on the systems running on top of it. 

It is pretty straightforward. We're able to manage multiple platforms with ease. In terms of the overhead of understanding how the entire platform is being administered, it was fairly quick for our team to get the hang of it.

It could have some automation. We haven't involved ourselves in a lot of automation around the vSAN environment capabilities. We're still running it using a very traditional setup. So, there could be some plugins to automate it using third-party environments, such as Jenkins.

We were trying to explore a solution for a hybrid setup, and VMware had proposed something, but we wanted to understand a deeper setup where our existing vSAN and our HCI environment can interact better with our platforms on the cloud in AWS. So, there should be those types of interactions wherein we can better explore cost-saving opportunities from some platforms in the cloud versus the one that we have on-prem.

I have been using this solution for more than two years.

It has been a pretty stable system so far.

We had a long discussion with our vendor partner about a plan to scale up the system. They gave us several options, but we ended up with the most cost-effective one where we had to trim down some of the node requirements that we were planning to buy initially.

We had an experience with them recently, and the correspondence with the technical support from VMware was fairly quick. It was aligned with the expected SLA. There were no major issues with the support people who assisted us during that time.

It was fairly straightforward. We were surprised at how fast it was implemented. The entire implementation took about two weeks. After that, it was turned over to us, and then we planned on the migration of the platforms from our old converged environment into this new environment.

In terms of the maintenance, apart from the normal operational maintenance that we're doing, we always ensure that there is a back-to-back maintenance agreement with VMware and the vendor partner who sold us the solution. So far, there has been very low admin maintenance on the platform. There have been no major issues except the last one where one node got affected by a power problem in the data center. That's just about it.

We worked with a vendor partner for its implementation. Right now, in our team, we have around five admins who work with this solution.

Cost-wise, the Nutanix licenses were cheaper, but in terms of the hardware, there was some contention around it. So, in terms of implementation, the way Nutanix was projecting the implementation on their end was that there were a lot of open-source admin platforms. vSAN is a licensed product in VMware, and Nutanix was proposing a KVM solution, which is open source. That's why their pricing was a bit cheaper, but when we were trying to compare it with an enterprise version of their management platform, it boiled down to the VMware vSAN being most effective in the long run.

When we were exploring an HCI solution, we zoned in on the VMware vSAN, HPE solution, and Nutanix solution. 

I would recommend this solution to others. It is easy to implement, scale, and maintain. The operational work required to maintain the platform is not that difficult.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

VMware vSAN is a highly scalable solution. We can start with as few nodes as possible and scale up according to our needs. Another advantage is deploying a stretched solution across two sites, with data synchronization between the two data centers. Setting up a stretch cluster is made easy with vSAN.

VMware vSAN provides seamless integration within the hypervisor core, providing stability and eliminating the need for additional VM gateways per node, as required by solutions like Nutanix. This integration simplifies the ecosystem, making it easier to adopt and manage.

The main improvement in VMware vSAN is its licensing mode. Its acquisition prioritizes doubling the EBITA rather than focusing on technological advancement. This is a common issue in the IT market, where companies may be acquired by financial entities, potentially leading to stagnation in technological innovation. The technology is mature and stable, with no significant improvements currently evident.
The new feature allows for the use of only two nodes in an active-active setup.

I have been using VMware vSAN for eight years.

The performance is up to our expectations. The initial performance is high solution because we use flash storage. The complete solution is good.

The solution’s scalability is good. 200 users are using this solution. We have a private cloud with many intelligent users who can connect to the cloud.

We can manage the solution ourselves. 

There may be an opportunity for vSAN to explore new avenues for open-cycle solutions with the recent reorganization of Broadcom impacting VMware.

We use VMware vSAN with 50 instances, but we must change the licensing. Broadcom buys VMware.

We had been using the Dell VxRail solution. Due to Dell's cessation of collaboration with VMware and Broadcom's decision to overhaul the licensing model, our future with VxRail is uncertain. We can purchase VxRail with vSAN, which is integrated into Dell's portfolio. We lack assurance now that Dell and Broadcom are separate entities.
Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The product’s most valuable features are performance and expandability.

The platform’s pricing needs improvement. Additionally, there should be an appliance module included in it.

We have been using VMware vSAN for seven out of years.

The product is stable.

It is a scalable product. It is suitable for enterprises.

Since we are an advanced partner, we receive on-time and adequate support services. However, their response time needs improvement for critical cases.

Neutral

It is an easy-to-install and maintain product. It requires one or two executives, depending on the environment, to conduct implementation.

VMware vSAN is an expensive platform. We purchase its yearly license.

I recommend VMware vSAN and rate it an eight out of ten. The product’s support team’s response time and pricing could be better.

We are a solution provider and I am a consultant that works with products such as VMware vSAN.

The most valuable feature is the fast performance.

The licensing includes all of the recent features.

This solution should be easier to support and upgrade.

As a software-based product, it requires a lot of system resources.

I have been working with VMware vSAN for approximately two years.

The stability is quite good.

Scalability-wise, I would describe it as medium-level when compared to others.

I have been in contact with technical support but I have not needed to ask them a lot of questions. They are not the best but not the worst. Overall, I am satisfied with the support.

I would rate the support a four out of five.

In addition to VMware vSAN, we have HPE SimpliVity and Nutanix.

VMware vSAN operates at the software level, whereas SimpliVity operates at the hardware level. The price of SimpliVity is higher than a software-based product.

The disadvantage to VMware, operating at the software level, is that you have to have more resources.

The bottom line is that it's cheaper and easier to set up VMware vSAN.

The initial setup is not quite easy but rather, a medium-level difficulty. The installation should be simple but the instructions from the vendor are not quite enough. This means that you have to conduct some trial and error.

On a scale of one to where, where five is the easier, I would rate the initial setup and deployment a three.

This is a cost-effective product. It's a bit cheaper than the other solutions.

Price-wise, I would rate vSAN a four out of five.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that you need to think about what it's going to be used with. For example, it may be more or less suitable depending on whether it will be used for normal database applications, VDI, or something else. The reason it needs consideration is that the initial hardware purchase depends on it. With respect to the software, there is only one choice, which is the VM license. However, for the hardware, you have to think about the servers, including the storage and other components.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.