VMware vSphere Reviews

We are a construction business and this solution enables us to securely operate our technology. We are customers of VMware vSphere and I'm the company's head of IT. 

We have many power outages and VMware is very reliable in terms of dealing with that kind of experience on a regular basis. 

The most valuable feature is the reliability for our own servers, the backup of the information on our servers. 

The main issue for us is the cost of the solution. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The stability is fine - we need to upgrade our hardware and that is currently an issue. 

We currently have 25 employees using this solution with another 20 users who work remotely.
We have two people managing vSphere.

Our experience with technical support has been very good. 

We previously used SAN products and we've recently decided that we're going to move to Nutanix. 

The initial setup was straightforward with deployment taking two weeks. We had an independent integrator who was responsible for this and they did a good job. 

This is a very good product for small business or community organizations. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We have a variety of customers with different use cases. Many can't go to a public cloud, and so we give the option of a private cloud. If they can go to a public cloud, may use a hyperscaler such as AWS or Azure on their applications. 

vSphere is easy to integrate with multiple third-party tools. We're using Carbonite, for example, for migration. We are also using vSphere and vCenter for integrating with a CA product. 

The solution allows for very good virtualization.

It makes migration processes easy.

The product offers a lot of functionality. It helps use manage everything for the client.

The solution can be integrated with multiple other technologies. If you have Cisco CSA solution, for example, it integrates well. 

If you want to use third-party tools, you are able to do so. 

With respect to the Windows environment, it's very, very easy to use.

Commercially, you see other products, like Nutanix, which offers a free hypervisor. It would be ideal if this solution was the same in that regard.

There are certain tools the can't run in parallel and occasionally, in those instances, we have trouble migrating customers from one source to our data center.

If I'm replicating workload from the data center and, I have to migrate some of the workload to my location, I have to stop that application. Only then I can run vSphere. That is the biggest challenge. If both the tools cannot run in parallel, it becomes a problem. There should be some sort of way to run these two products in parallel.

We've been using the solution for a number of years. It may be about eight at this point.

The stability has been very good. We haven't had any issues thus far with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The scalability is quite good. You can scale it horizontally and vertically if you need to. It's quite flexible in that sense. A company that needs to expand it shouldn't run into any issues.

The solution can have ten to 15 nodes. 

Currently, we use the solution quite extensively in our organization. We do plan to continue to increase the usage of the product in the future.

Technical support is okay. We're pretty satisfied with the level of service we are provided. They seem to be pretty knowledgeable and responsive. 

We also use Nutanix, however, we don't use that solution quite as extensively.

VMware has much better functionalities. They have integrated IDs and some functionalities. as well as load-balancing which Nutanix doesn't have right now. 

The initial setup is not complex. It's rather straightforward.

We can deploy the solution in three to four days, typically. We deploy multiple clusters and we take three to four days in terms of grid installing. 

In terms of pricing, a little bit of improvement is required. There is a lot of competition in the market. If you talk about Nutanix, Nutanix is much cheaper than this product. Very recently, we lost out on a contract due to the pricing.

We're a partner with VMware.

We are a data center service provider. We sell these services to customers. We are not using it for ourselves only. We are also selling the solution to our customers. In that sense, there's always a plan to increase vSphere.

Overall, we're pretty satisfied with the solution. I'd rate it a seven out of ten.

VMware is good for virtualization.

The licensing costs are expensive and most of the important features require a license. 

For example, we would like to use DRS but there is an additional license for that. If it were free then it would be very helpful. 

I have been working with VMware vSphere for three years.

This product is very stable. It gives you good visibility of your hardware and the loads on it.

Up to now, I haven't had a problem that caused me to contact the technical support team.

I have experience with using Proxmox on a single host for about two months, with Hyper-V. This setup is only in a lab and not for production.

For my initial setup, I am not using the entire functionality. We are using vMotion, storage, and clustering.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is server virtualization and it brings stability to our workloads.

The most valuable features are stability and support. The stability of this product is very good, and I have not seen an issue for many years. It is very stable for all of the features that are available today.

I would like to see support for endpoint virtualization.

Another thing that I would like to see are improvements with respect to performance.

I have been using VMware vSphere for at least seven or eight years.

The stability is very good and should be a top priority for choosing this product.

This is definitely a scalable product and it is used in a virtualized environment.

The support is very good and we have had no issues with them.

Compared to other products, vSphere is number one in terms of flexibility and scalability.

Pricing is a little bit on the higher side, compared to other products.

Basically, this is a good solution and most of the features are already there. I can recommend it to others. That said, I would like to see better performance.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's virtualization software. We are using it to virtualize virtual machines.

It cuts down on hardware costs by being able to virtualize multiple hardware and multiple machines on a single piece of hardware.

The primary use is the most valuable feature. Being able to virtualize virtual machines on one set of hardware is essentially what it does.

The user interface could use some improvement.

I have been using VMware vSphere for approximately five years.

This product has been very stable.

The version that I have is not very scalable, although overall, the product is. I bought a limited version. We do not plan to increase our usage within the next year. There may be, later on.

I really haven't had much need for technical support.

Prior to using vSphere, I was working strictly with individual machines.

I thought that the initial setup was very straightforward.

We deployed with our in-house team.

I and another person are in charge of administration and maintenance. There is routine maintenance needed for virtual machines. This includes maintaining existing virtual machines, as well as creating new ones when required.

Considering that this solution has cut down on the number of real machines that I have, I would expect there to have been cost savings.

My advice for anybody who is looking into using vSphere is that there are a lot more options out there now, but this product has worked well for me.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that it's too easy to create new machines.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The virtualization is set by itself. vSphere is the best way to have a non-host based fixed solution. We always try to find an agnostic environment where we can restore agnostics or just say, "I need resources capacity." That's why VMware vSphere in particular, has been the best in the past but now also with the evolution of their product. Nowadays, you don't have to use any STEM infrastructure anymore because the bandwidth and the LAN speeds are getting steeper. 

If you look at the interconnection if you have a dark fiber connection, you can have data sent between locations. It's getting much cheaper.

If you use Zerto on top of that, then you are protected against any cyber threats or attacks. If you do it right, if you configure it from the hypervisor layer to external storage and then you have always a way back. It's blocked by the application of the journal. You can always go back to a point in time if you want to restore. If the point in time is as short as possible then you have the best solution. You can leave any additional solutions like CrowdStrike.

The only way for it to be a complete product is if you integrate all the functionalities. Then you don't need any backup solution anymore and you can do it by yourself. Integration needs improvement. They should improve a lot of the functionality because normally it's half of a product. You're only protecting yourself against technical failures but not against any cyber threats or any other stuff. It's not about prevention, it's about time to recovery because it's going to happen anyway. 

I have been using vSphere for twelve years. 

It was very easy to install. If you have the right piece of hardware or blade server in place, you can use it in a VM where you try XYZ and then install it. You go forward with that and it's ready to install, so it's not a big problem.

I would rate vSphere and 9.5 out of ten. 

I really like it because it's a storage restoration additional add-on but it's really expensive now. 

Firstly, we use it to provide an infrastructure for a development environment. Secondly, we use it to provide services to end-users. A kind of clustered services, where underneath, there are plenty of virtual machines. Thirdly, these solutions were chosen because of the easy way of providing backups and zero downtime between accidents and issues. 

VMware vSphere provides an easy way of providing near-zero downtime services, the operation of the instances between clustered services, and providing the projected SLA for our customers. 

Mostly, we use a gap solution for PaaS and IaaS levels of solutions. We also use Kubernetes on the application layer and downtime to move to a different layer of workloads. 

However, we still use plain virtual machine platform environments because we are leveraging just on-premise servers. We can't, or we don't want to fully move into clouds. That's why it's important for us to use a solution like VMware vSphere. 

I'm not aware of every option that our solution provides, but I see mostly two things. Provide a better solution for hybrid clouds and migration to the cloud. That could be one thing. The second one is providing some integration with different solutions at the application level, such as Kubernetes.

There is always a problem that the application level solutions are not aware of lower levels of infrastructure, of architecture. Some bundled applications with a stack of new VMs with better templates, including the deployment of such things. Monitoring could also be improved.

I have been using VMware vSphere for more than 10 years.

I think it's stable. We have encountered a major issue twice during the last four or five years. But it was not related only to vSphere but solutions like extensions to the software we use. 

However, there was no downtime, there was some issue, but I would say that the solution is quite stable. We have been using it for a few years without any major incidents that I am aware of.

To my knowledge, it's quite scalable and elastic in terms of providing bigger throughputs and managing higher volumes of requests at the end, but our cases currently are not like the biggest. 

I think most of the solutions available right now are set up for the infrastructure. The hardware is enough for the performance level we want to have. It's enough, and if we wanted to improve it, there is space for that. 

However, I can tell you that this solution was stable in my first project. Between 2010 and 2014, at a different company, the solution provided everything that I needed at that moment. There were no problems with scaling this solution.

However, we had problems with the hardware limits. We reached the limit, but it was quite good with vSphere solutions because even if we reached the point of having no hardware, like memory and computers, we managed to provide stable workloads for our customers. We gained the level of performance we wanted to have.

We were dealing with a complex situation dynamically, and the solution provided us with the tools, and the scalability was not an issue. However, we had problems with the hardware limits.

The support could be better when it comes to opening and responding to a ticket. But it was within a reasonable time. However, I'm don't have direct contact with the support, and my team's not giving me information about any issues.

My experience was with the public sector. That was rather complex from the start. In my previous experiences, if we wanted to use vSphere, that was after we tried some different techniques, and we had reached the limit of it or the complexity of the setup. 

That's why we wanted to move to simplify it. The setup was immature, and we needed to provide better service for customers. That's why we choose to use vSphere. The complex one was the other option.

The setup takes about one or two days or something in-between.

VMware vSphere is a top enterprise solution, so we pay the price for a major product.  We use vSphere because when we get the project, the customers were already using it. But currently, for example, if we have a new project and we are setting up our environment, and we have no constraints about the technology, like using vSphere, we rather go for Proxmox.

We are using it because it was already there before. The cost of migration, for example, is too high to move into different solutions, and the cost of keeping it is enough, and so we accept it. 

Overall, I would like to have cheaper licensing costs and maybe a different policy for licensing. However, we don't see that as a big issue because we are paying for a good solution. 

That's why I think it's a fair price. We are using it on the production side, and everything is good from our experience. That's why I would say that the cost isn't too high. However, it would always be nice if it was cheaper.

Proxmox is cost-effective and good. For example, if we have some projects where the hardware is provided by our customers, and we can use any technology we want.

Proxmox, in most cases, is good for creating some development and staging environment. Because it's cost-effective, we can afford to have a solution based on that technology. 

In most cases, I know that it's not limiting us in terms of the operating systems we use, and my team is quite happy when using such solutions. But it's not the production solution that we use at the end. It's mostly temporary for a few months, and we are using it because of the cost and because there will be an easy way to deploy. We can start to use it and move our environment between the projects. It's quite easy and quite quick.

With different technologies like Grafana, we gain information from infrastructure and application-level from different sources, and we integrate it into a different solution.

However, monitoring information could always be improved. Integrating with the application level could be improved, and monitoring could also be extended to that. Providing us with a more complex and just a one-click solution for seeing everything, how the infrastructure and how integrations are behaving, and the levels of infrastructure and application services would be a nice solution to have.

I think the decision needs to be made by the architects of the solution. They need to be aware of the cost of such solutions, their requirements, and the constraints of such technologies. From a technological point, it's always a good solution. However, it might not be the best solution in terms of the total cost of ownership, and maybe there are better solutions like Proxmox.

I would give VMware vSphere a solid eight out of ten. 

We are using vSphere to virtualize our workloads.

The most valuable features are the resilience of the solution and vMotion.

I would like to have replication between sites available in the standard version.

We have been using vSphere for more than five years.

We use it on a daily basis and it seems stable most of the time.

All of our servers and products run using vSphere. It is easy to scale.

Support for the product is not good enough. It should be faster and more efficient.

This is the only solution of this type that we have used.

The initial setup was simple, but you have to develop it before you begin to install it.

The deployment took us approximately one week.

We shared the implementation with a partner.

We do the maintenance, although we did have a problem one time that we escalated to the vendor.

The price of this solution is mid-range. There are additional features that can be purchased for an extra charge. For example, if you want replication between sites then you have to pay more.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it because it's resilient and you do not have many products to install.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are resellers and consultants who provide solutions for our clients.

They manage the virtual machines, such as CPU usage, or memory usage, or disk space.

The most valuable features are the vMotion, the storage vMotion, the DRS, and the high availability function.

The way that vSphere manages the alerts on the data machine is not easy to configure.

I have been working with vSphere for approximately 15 years.

We started with version 4.

It's a stable solution.

VMware vSphere is scalable.

Our clients are medium size companies.

We have not used technical support.

The initial setup was easy.

In my opinion, the essential version is a good price.

This is a good solution and I will recommend it. They are choosing a good product.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use VMware vSphere just for hosting purposes. We are data center. We create virtual machines and give them to our clients. We deal mostly in gaming.

We only have one virtual machine and we're still exploring it. Overall, it's a super product.

The initial setup is easy.

The product offers good stability.

The solution is too expensive for us and we don't have any funds to direct towards it. We just started the company, which makes it hard to explore the solution the way we want to with the amount of cost involved to do so. They should work to make the licensing more affordable.

I want to be able to use OpenStack, however, I can't do that without vCenter, and it's so cost-prohibitive for us, it's become a problem.

We've only faced one technical issue. That is downloading the virtual machines and uploading the virtual machines. It takes a lot of time and we cannot transfer the VMware from one machine or directly from one server to another. That action requires vCenter. That may only be an issue on the free version and not the pro version. On the pro version, you have much better features. 

It would be ideal if they could integrate billing software so that clients can customize it directly on the virtual machine. Billing should also be done automatically. Perhaps this is already the case, however, I haven't really had a chance to explore it fully.

While I'm currently on the free version, I'd like to have the ability to explore the pro version to see what is on offer there.

I've been working with the solution for the last three years.

The product is very stable. We don't have issues with bugs or glitches and it doesn't fail or crash. It's reliable.

The solution may be scalable. However, we haven't personally attempted to scale anything due to our general lack of funds and the expansiveness of the product. Therefore, I can't really speak to scalability so much.

I'm currently also working with another product called KVM. It's much more affordable than vSphere.

The initial setup is not difficult or complex. We found it to be straightforward and easy.

The solution is extremely expensive, especially for startups such as ours, who don't have the capacity to invest so much in such a product.

Overall, I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. Everything it does, it does very well, even among all of the competition that exists in India. However, price-wise, for us, it's not ideal.

I haven't explored much, however, from what I have seen, they really do cover everything.