VMware vSphere Foundation Reviews

My main use case for VMware vSphere Foundation is virtualization, which is very useful for consolidating all the physical machines.

I really appreciate VMotion and HA as useful features.

VMware vSphere Foundation has a powerful tool whereby we can implement HA (high availability) for each node, and we can VMotion the virtual machine to another host. High availability enables us to reduce downtime.

We save substantial money from using VMware vSphere Foundation because previously, we needed to provision all new applications with new physical servers, such as app servers, DB servers, and license servers. Now we can virtualize everything into one box.

If VMware vSphere Foundation can maintain their pricing, it would be beneficial since Broadcom has acquired their shares. This means that if Broadcom can provide more value to VMware vSphere Foundation, they can invest more, as previously many customers used the platform.

The biggest issue is pricing due to the Broadcom acquisition. In terms of features and readiness, we can achieve consolidation and save money. The support is satisfactory, and we hope they continue their momentum to ensure they can support their existing users.

I have been working with VMware vSphere Foundation for about eight years.

The monitoring service has been excellent because we have support from the principal. We subscribe to support specifically for VMware vSphere Foundation, so we can log a case and receive 24/7 support assistance whenever issues arise.

Positive

Initially, we needed to prepare the host, which means one big physical machine, or a minimum of three nodes. Once the hardware was delivered, proper configuration took about two weeks.

I have experience with VMware vSphere Foundation, and we are currently using it.

I am transferring to a new unit, so I am no longer handling that service.

The system is managed by another person.

My title is consultant at the company Tenaga Nasional Berhad, TNB.

My email is Azhari M Y at tnb.com.my.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate VMware vSphere Foundation a 9 out of 10.

I am not specifically in a partnership with VMware, but I am using many tools from VMware. For example, vRealize Operations is a very good tool to manage and monitor infrastructure. I believe it is the best one for all virtualization solutions.

vRealize Operations is really special. I believe the best features emerge when you implement vRealize Operations. It is the best tool in VMware and can monitor infrastructure while being proactive on different failures. I find it very interesting. Building VMware infrastructure should be added by vRealize Operations. I have recommended it many times for my old customers.

It is so easy to use. Support was also reactive and responsive. However, since three years especially, we have changed our approach. We now manage the current solution locally ourselves, just to replace it with another solution.

It depends on the sizing of the solution. Especially when we use a SAN solution, no more than five days are needed. However, when we use software-defined solutions from VMware, it takes more time than using native infrastructure.

The implementation takes more time during the setup phases because it is not easy to implement VMware vSphere Foundation management VMs. It is sometimes needed. I estimate five days are required to implement a medium configuration with a hypervisor and one or two SAN switches. The configuration is straightforward but requires considerable time.

I remember when I was working as a consultant and implemented Site Recovery Manager from VMware. It was working fine and is a very good solution. Although I used it five or six years in the past, it is very beneficial for customers as a function to build disaster recovery.

I have worked with VMware solutions for more than ten years.

I have not experienced stability issues.

I have not experienced scalability issues. We use only on-premises deployments.

Support from VMware is very good and proactive. When we call and open a case, the response is very reactive and they send us solutions and access through Webex sessions. The problem is not the support or the product features. I believe support deserves a rating of ten out of ten. I have opened cases, though not a very high number, and the response has been excellent. VMware support is reactive with high technical skills from the engineers. The opening to Webex sessions is exactly what we are looking for.

We do not have metrics at this time. I am continuing to work with VMware to find and replace it with another alternative. I do not have a specific focus on the system. We maintain it to continue working while we migrate to another solution.

The implementation takes more time during the setup phases because it is not easy to implement VMware vSphere Foundation management VMs. It is sometimes needed. I estimate five days are required to implement a medium configuration with a hypervisor and one or two SAN switches. The configuration is straightforward but requires considerable time.

We are working especially on Proxmox solution and KVM solution.

I have been working in this field for thirty years. My overall review rating for this product is ten out of ten.

My team runs VMware Aria Operations, but I have limited experience.

I'm most familiar with the VMware vSphere Foundation solutions, specifically the virtual, the enterprise, and the vCenter components and all that stuff.

VMware vSphere Foundation runs our virtualization platform, the drawing platform, managing all our enterprise components.

We utilize the high availability and DRS components that come with VMware vSphere Foundation for managing our VMs.

VMware vSphere Foundation is positioned in the top right quadrant in a Gartner chart and offers the best virtualization solution to help manage enterprise components.

It's a fairly decent product, and it's very adequate to facilitate seamless data center operations and helps us get the job done.

It obviously helps in reducing downtime and mitigates risks when we have potential failures in hardware by moving VMs around, so it does what it needs to do to help us mitigate issues.

The impact of VMware vSphere Foundation performance monitoring capabilities is somewhat limited; therefore, you have to look at the additional components built around it.

They can always use some improvement in task logging and all that stuff. It would be nice if they could provide a command interface right through the GUI so we don't have to go into the back end to figure things out.

It's a very well-established product, a mature product. There's always room for improvement. I don't prefer what they did with VMware 8, but maybe it's me getting used to it. I don't appreciate how the annotations component works, and I think they can work on the annotations and the summary aspects.

I've been using VMware vSphere Foundation for approximately 15 years.

I would give their customer service a seven. I think they're good at certain things and not so good at other things when we get technical.

I think they're very good at things they know, but with Broadcom coming in, they've created a lot of havoc in the VMware environment.

VMware has engaged in a practice of trivializing their customers to the degree that makes us want to go elsewhere, and they have a negative attitude concerning their customer.

Positive

It's a hard question to answer regarding ROI with VMware vSphere Foundation, as it's hard to justify against what. It allows us to run lots of VMs on-prem instead of going to the cloud compared to past physical machines.

VMware vSphere Foundation is currently more expensive, and we are looking for alternatives.

Broadcom is screwing their customers.

Overall, I would rate VMware vSphere Foundation a nine out of ten.

I mostly use VMware vSphere Foundation in environments migrating from physical to virtualized infrastructures. The second use case is when refactoring the application stack to transition toward a cloud-native architecture, which entails redesigning or re-architecting how the application stack comes together, occasionally combining virtual machines with containerized capabilities.

The intuitive management interface of VMware vSphere Foundation has improved over the years, especially in the last couple of versions, which I find satisfactory. Previously, it was quite clunky, but it has gotten better.

Overall, I am generally happy with VMware's customer support; they are responsive and I have no reason to complain. Whenever I've needed assistance, I've managed to reach the right people, even when it involved them going back to their research or technical advisory teams for answers, consistently finding solutions, workarounds, or permanent fixes within a reasonable timeframe.

I have concerns regarding VMware's strategy, particularly about how it manages multiple cloud environments since clients and my company need to navigate multiple clouds. The ability to manage all these environments through a single management interface has become increasingly important. Additionally, companies often arbitrage between different cloud environments, which means we need to optimize workloads based on varying computational abilities and cost points—something I haven't seen fully addressed in your product yet, but which I believe will be necessary.

When discussing improvements for VMware vSphere Foundation, many people bring up cost as an issue, but I don't consider that to be the main concern. A key aspect to consider is that we often lack a comprehensive understanding of all the moving parts related to how the product evolves. The conversation we've had illustrates that we may not fully recognize or appreciate all the new features and updates being rolled out.

I have been working with VMware vSphere Foundation in various roles for about 15 years, and during this time, the product has evolved significantly. Currently, I deal more with the VMware Cloud side of things, but I have used and implemented vSphere quite a few times based on different projects.

I find the deployment of VMware vSphere Foundation to be relatively easy, although it does depend on your experience with VMware; generally, there are hardly ever any issues with it.

I can manage 98% of deployments myself, unless there's something unusual about the way it's being deployed. The last time I needed significant help was when we began rolling out Kubernetes-based architectures on top of VMware Cloud, but once I got through that, it became less complex. It has been about two years since then, and if you have experienced VMware engineers, it is usually not a problem.

So far, I have found the performance monitoring within VMware vSphere Foundation to be effective in identifying and resolving system issues. One area I'm particularly keen to explore again soon is the performance around service meshes and managing complete microservices architectures deployed as a service mesh.

In terms of technical features, the three typical scenarios I deal with have been manageable, ranging from basic to more complex architectures. One of the more challenging scenarios involved integrating zero trust security architectures, which requires careful architecture for interoperability, particularly among VMware and other technology stack components.

I have no reason to complain regarding the integration of VMware vSphere Foundation with my existing ecosystem; the connectivity level has improved over the past couple of years. If you'd asked me this question 2-3 years ago, I would have pointed out existing problems, but that's no longer the case.

Neutral

For deployment time, if you have already created the necessary virtual machines with gold copies, it can take just a couple of minutes; however, deploying a new image for the first time takes longer, as the image itself has to be created. When dealing with containerized environments, appropriate setup of the right manifest is necessary, so some pre-work is usually required for effective deployment.

The benefits I receive from utilizing VMware vSphere Foundation include the cost dimension from physical infrastructure optimization, which reduces refresh cycles. Additionally, standardizing the landscape allows for faster support and provisioning, minimizing delivery service costs. If you know what you're doing, there is flexibility and interoperability with multi-mode architectures that accommodate both on-prem and cloud realities, becoming increasingly important as solutions emerge from various architectural perspectives.

Within the last year, I have worked on a project that looks at VMware vSphere Foundation not just in terms of the implementation, but also the security and control side of it, as well as its integration with multi-cloud environments.

I have seen a version of the comprehensive resource management feature of VMware vSphere Foundation, but I haven't fully engaged with it. If it is available, some more information would be helpful because it aligns with problem statements I believe should be examined.

I have not leveraged VMware vSphere Foundation's high availability and disaster recovery options to their fullest extent; I have utilized some features such as snapshotting but wouldn't say that's the complete use of the product.

I see the integration of AI into VMware becoming increasingly necessary; if you're following an IT for IT strategy, AI will play a role in auto-provisioning infrastructure. Properly utilizing AI in this space can lead to enhanced optimization of configuration deployments and ongoing performance improvements, involving areas such as service reliability engineering, though I haven't yet encountered this in practice.

I would rate VMware vSphere Foundation eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

We mostly use VMware vSphere Foundation for data center, enterprise-level data centers. We use it for data center virtualization.

VMware vSphere ensures high resilience in the data center. A failure of one of the hosts does not result in failure in services or the entire infrastructure. The workload will move to the adjacent load and continue operating. It consolidates our physical servers, giving us a lower physical server footprint and manages our infrastructure efficiently. These features are beneficial.

At the moment, nothing comes to mind. What does is not the technology. It's more of how Broadcom is managing their services, which have not been the same since the acquisition. Management of support cases is not as efficient as it used to be.

We have been using VMware vSphere Foundation since 2009 or 2010, thereabouts.

There is very low management required. Once deployed, you can be at ease. Occasionally, you will check alarms, mostly hardware-related. Stability is optimal.

The return on investment is high because we can maximize the use of one server for multiple workloads. VMware vSphere Foundation has a good level of third-party provider integration capabilities. The scalability is ten out of ten.

Before Broadcom, VMware's support was an eight or ten out of ten. Now, with Broadcom's management, I would rate it a three out of ten.

Neutral

Before the name change, we were on VMware vSphere Enterprise Plus. Broadcom acquired it, leading to changes that have confused everyone.

For the initial setup, one can attach an ISO, load the machine console, and follow the installation steps. In a live environment, it’s necessary to disconnect your shared storage from the host before installation.

We needed between two to six people for deployment.

Server consolidation is one return on investment where we can use one server for multiple workloads. It improves recoverability and scalability.

VMware is expensive and rightly so. It is a good and reliable product. It's expensive, however, the stability it offers is optimal. We pay a few hundreds of thousands of dollars mostly for support annually.

Earlier, we considered Hyper V since it was prominent at the time.

Even after Broadcom's acquisition, VMware vSphere Foundation remains a ten out of ten in terms of product quality. The handling of support has changed, and Broadcom appears more interested in profitability than in customer satisfaction.

I can describe the use cases for the product.

VMware vSphere Foundation works well for what it is. It is fairly easy to use and fairly easy to install.

The product includes disaster recovery features. The disaster recovery capability is quite good. The security features help to protect critical applications in general.

It is not the best because something is bothering me and could be enhanced. I want to discuss disadvantages because I have covered some positive things. There are potential areas that could be better.

I have been working with VMware vSphere Foundation for several years. I am also selling it.

When comparing CloudStack or Proxmox with VMware vSphere Foundation, there are significant differences from technical standpoints and pricing. VMware vSphere Foundation is easy to install. I have utilized VMware vSphere Foundation's Hybrid Cloud deployment.

Regarding stability, VMware vSphere Foundation needs some ratings to assess its performance.

Regarding the scalability of VMware vSphere Foundation, there are questions about whether it is completely scalable or if there are limitations. The clients have it in both cloud and on-premises environments.

I have worked with other virtualization tools apart from VMware.

We used Oracle solutions, including a discontinued product called Secure Global Gateway. We are now using a product from Amitigo, a German company, called Visulox, which is currently based on Oracle Secure Global Desktop. They are working on a new release that will be based on a different backend solution.

I work with Red Hat and Commvault. I am a reseller for Red Hat.

My overall experience with VMware vSphere Foundation would be rated as NA out of 10.

I am currently using vSphere Foundation to manage multiple standalone servers and our cluster environment. It provides me with good manageability from a virtualization perspective.

I find the manageability and interface of vSphere Foundation to be very good, more understandable, and futuristic compared to open-source alternatives. It provides me with a lot of features that I am comfortable using for virtualization. I manage multiple servers with ease, which is a significant benefit for my organization's virtualization needs.

One area of concern is Oracle's lack of support for VMware in terms of core licensing. It is not legally compliant to use an Oracle database on VMware, which does not support Oracle core-based licensing. Therefore, I decided to decommission VMware due to these licensing issues.

I have used VMware vSphere Foundation for eight years.

VMware vSphere Foundation is stable. It is a standard tool and is considered very stable.

VMware vSphere Foundation is scalable.

The support service is not very good. I often resolve issues myself or with community help, as the response time from support is not as expected. I would rate their support five out of ten.

Neutral

I am using a kernel-based virtualization solution from Oracle. I am in the process of decommissioning VMware and transitioning to this Oracle solution due to VMware's licensing costs and limitations.

The initial setup involves configuring a lot of elements like the server and storage, which requires a significant amount of time and resources.

The deployment involved three to five people. I manage some aspects of maintenance myself.

While the return on investment is not clearly defined, the manageability of multiple servers without needing additional personnel or specialists is beneficial.

Licensing costs are very high, and older licenses like version 6.5 are not upgradable, making it costly to maintain or upgrade.

I have adopted a kernel-based virtualization solution from Oracle.

Overall, I would not recommend VMware vSphere Foundation at this time. My overall rating for the solution is six out of ten.

I work for a data center as a system administrator. I oversee production and analyze systems. We host our workloads on VMware and virtualized infrastructure.

The features are easy to manage, and the user experience is excellent. Each version of vSphere offers a range of features, from basic hypervisors to vCenter, which are easy to manage. It is more reliable than others. VMware has the largest portfolio, and I appreciate how they manage virtual infrastructure. The virtual stack of vCenter, its distributed resources system, high availability engines, and the ability to move VM workloads from one host to another are outstanding. No other vendor provides such features to the extent VMware does.

The licensing model is an area for improvement. Recently, VMware shifted its licensing models, and they should streamline it. Now they have time-based and core-based licensing, which may or may not be relevant. While not a technical issue, obtaining VMware can be difficult.

I have been using VMware for four to five years.

The main strength of VMware is its stability.

VMware has the best scalability. You can simply add more hosts to your VMware stack seamlessly, scaling up vertically or horizontally.

Support from VMware is rarely needed. I have enterprise support, but I barely use it. Most of the time, VMware operates smoothly without requiring support. In the past year, I have approached support once or twice, mostly during upgrades. Operations are stable and reliable, minimizing the need for support.

Positive

I have some experience with OpenShift as well. I consider NeoBLayer the top option.

The initial setup is easy, and you don't need very high skills for that. You can easily install and deploy VMware technologies on any VMware product.

An individual can handle deployment, however, it depends on the scale. For a small setup, a single individual can manage it.

VMware is on the expensive side.

I also use KVM-based hypervisors.

I have experienced many types of software. From a user point of view, I don't see limitations in VMware's features. Comparing VMware with other products, it offers the best features and options. VMware provides the best features. 

I am a certified engineer for VMware, specifically a data center certified engineer. 

Overall, I rate VMware a nine out of ten.

I use vSphere Foundation for virtualization. I handle multiple VMs and have been involved in deploying it for various industries, including banking, FMCG, and telecoms. I work as a service provider, offering support and administration of the solution.

vSphere Foundation is valuable due to its scalability, reliability, and ease of management. It allows multiple VMs in one server, making it cost-effective. Its high availability and the convenience of management are significant benefits for my customers.

VMware needs to improve cost efficiency, especially in Pakistan, as customers often seek more affordable solutions. Reducing costs would enhance the product's appeal.

I have nearly ten years of experience working with vSphere Foundation.

vSphere Foundation is a very stable product, with about 90% of our customers using it. It performs reliably across various environments.

vSphere Foundation is very easy to scale. It's straightforward to procure additional licenses, install them on the host and add them to the same cluster.

Customer support in Pakistan is satisfactory. The support team is certified and competent, particularly in emergencies. Though some connections are through resources in India, the support quality remains high.

The initial setup of vSphere Foundation is very easy. I would rate it a 7.5 out of ten.

vSphere Foundation is considered very expensive, especially when compared to competitive Chinese products. The costs include licensing and additional support fees.

My advice to users considering vSphere Foundation is that it is a very stable, user-friendly, and easy-to-use product. Customers should understand its cost implications and plan accordingly. 

I rate the product eight out of ten.