VMware vSphere Reviews

We are primarily using the solution as our virtualization platform.

We procure some licenses for vSphere Standard and we are using it to replicate to VM so that we can have at least that level of redundancy. On the upcoming project for VxRail, we'll be using it for a hyper-converged platform, where you can have high availability and failover capability in real-time.

The solution has been quite stable.

The solution can scale well.

We found the initial setup to be pretty straightforward.

The solution is quite expensive.

I haven't evaluated or looked at any other solutions for the most part and therefore can't speak to any aspect that is really lacking compared to what else is on the market.

I've used the solution for about five years at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is good.

The solution is quite scalable. We ordered a solution where the initial number of nodes is just three, however, after the design, it can grow up to 64 nodes.

If it's deployed on a hyper-converged solution, yes, it will be scalable.

Only the system admins use the solution. There are around not more than 10.

We plan to continue to use the solution and to scale it up, as we build out our infrastructure.

We bought the solution through a Dell partner and we get support through them if we need it. We don't deal directly with VMware. I can't speak to how their technical support services are. Our Dell partner connection acts as a middle man between our company and VMware, therefore, they deal with VMware directly.

The solution is pretty simple to set up if it's a stand-alone.

We have two departments that have technical teams that can handle maintenance on the solution.

We used an integrator that was a VMware partner and they assisted us with the implementation process.

We are currently buying some more licenses to be able to move to version 7.

The solution is expensive, however, due to the criticality of the features on offer, for us, it's worth the cost.

I haven't really looked at too many other solutions, other than Hyper-V. VMware seems to be way better overall if you compare just those two.

We are currently in the process of moving to version 7 of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly quite satisfied with the solution overall. I'd recommend it to other companies.

The solution is typically used in different ways. For example, for different servers, we use a different version on the same physical servers. It's for consolidation on one hardware server. It's also used for redundancy, for fail order, for high availability, for the assistance of the system et cetera. It can also be used for a virtual classroom.

The solution has a high availability of features. 

They are very distributed and easy to use. 

The virtual card features are very good.

The REST is excellent.

Technical support is very good. They are very helpful.

The solution has been very intuitive. 

The product offers a very high level of performance.

You can scale the solution well.

I can't think of any particular features that are missing within the solution. It's quite complete.

There are occasionally bugs or errors.

Some customers are of the opinion that the pricing is too expensive for them.

I've been working with the solution for the last 12 months or so.

The stability is pretty good. In my experience, I see many different bugs or mistakes or errors in the different versions of VMware vSphere, however, they have a great software team. When you have some issues, you always get help from someone very quickly.

The scalability is very good on the product. It's pretty simple to scale up or down.

We have about 4,000 users that interact with it within the company.

We do plan to increase usage in the future if we need to.

The solution offers a very good level of technical support. We've always been able to get help when we've had issues. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide.

I've used Zen servers four or five years ago. I've also used Oracle VM in the past with a client.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not complex at all. If a company needs to set up the solution, they shouldn't have an issue doing so.

The plan for deployment matters. You should use a basic method of installation from a USB or some other hard drive or directly. It takes about 15 or 20 minutes. 

The cost varies from customer to customer. VMware offers various price policies, and therefore I'm unsure of how it differs from client to client.

We are a big IT integration company and we do around 80 projects for different customers in my country. We are a partner with VMware. We're one of their software vendors.

We use multiple versions of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Overall, we've been very satisfied with the solution and its capabilities.

We primarily use the solution for our virtual environment.

The VM features are all very good.

We've been very happy with the reporting aspects of the solution.

The documentation of the product is excellent. It's very helpful.

The product has been very stable. It's quite reliable.

The solution is very scalable.

We've found the technical support to be very helpful and responsive.

The initial setup is quite complex.

We would like the pricing to be lower. It's very expensive right now.

There could be more security features added to the product.

I've been using the solution for about five years or so. It's been a while at this point. I have a good amount of experience on it.

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

The scalability is very good. If a company would like to expand, it can do so.

In our organization, ten to 15 people are using the solution.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past. They've always been responsive. They are helpful and effective at solving issues. We're quite satisfied with the level of support our organization receives.

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

The licensing is on a subscription basis.

The solution, in general, is quite expensive. They should work to make it less costly for their customer base.

We are customers and end-users of the product.

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time.

We've just deployed it ourselves, and it is very small. We haven't had any difficulties with it at all so far and it's been five years.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been largely very satisfied with the capabilities.

Our deployments were formerly on-prem, but we have the role of a cloud provider. We have a distributed solution in our data center and several international cloud providers.

We use VMware vSphere for most of our business processes, including HR. 

We like a lot of the features, but none really stand out. It's very transparent and independent. 

We are very close to VM, all of our pain-points involve direct discussions. There are no special pain-points. This solution allows us to handle our system. It's required in business processes.

The management could be simplified for base-level customers, but of course, it would be difficult to match all customer needs. 

We have been using VMware vSphere for over 20 years.

VMware vSphere is absolutely stable.

We expand VMware vSphere daily. It's very scalable. 

The technical support is great. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The complexities lie on the TITO solution on-top.

The price could always be lower, but I think it's fair. 

I would absolutely recommend using this solution. It's clear-based, straightforward, and includes all of the options required in business. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of ten. 

The product is primarily used as a way to consolidate systems and leverage hardware resources more efficiently.

The solution has offered very good stability so far. It doesn't give us any issues.

You don't need too many people to manage the solution once it's up and running.

The HTML 5 client has always lagged behind. It would be nice if this wasn't the case. It's one of the key areas that they need to improve on.

In a previous company, I did not have a very good experience with technical support.

The main problem with the product is how it manages its snapshotting technology, which would need a complete ground-up rebuild. Likely, they won't put that in, however, basically, if you have an old snapshot, you want to get rid of it. It crushes the environment. This is due to the fact that all of your changes have to be written back to disk when you're deleting something versus just deleting it.

I've only been working with the solution for as long as I have been working for the company, which has been less than a year at this point.

The solution is very stable. It's quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good.

We've never tried to scale the solution. I can't speak to how easy or difficult it is to expand it out if a company needs to.

While I've never had to reach out to technical support while at this company, I have had to use technical support in the past when I was at a different organization. It was no a very good experience. I wasn't satisfied with the level of support provided at all. They were pretty bad. 

The solution was deployed by the company before I arrived. I wasn't a part of the process. Therefore, I can't speak to how easy or difficult it was or how long the deployment process actually was. I don't have any visibility or insights into that.

There are two main people that can go into the management console and perform maintenance duties as necessary.

I don't handle the licensing or payments process and therefore don't have visibility into how much the solution costs or what the payment structure is.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

It's my understanding that we are using the latest version of the solution, although I don't know the exact version number.

I would definitely recommend this solution to other organizations. For the most part, I've been very satisfied with its capabilities.

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

The feature I find the most valuable is that vSphere doesn't break unless integrated with Veeam or vCenter. 

When you run vSphere on its own, that thing can run for 50 years without crashing. The problem starts when you start integrating it to clusters, migrating the virtual machines, doing the DRS, and applying the resource pool. The problem is with the memory. 

Sometimes it's impossible to prevent problems from happening. With vSphere, you never know where the problem is going to come from, but you will always know that there is a problem. This is the problem. 

I would make integration much better and improve speed. I would also make the errors more visible to the user. 

I have been using this solution for many years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

Tech support is very knowledgeable.  

We are a service provider, and we give services to our customers. Whenever we provide the solution, we give the latest version available at that time.

This product is useful for running multiple virtual machines from a single server so that people can utilize the hardware resources in their organization. Its ability for backups is also valuable. In case of a disaster, you can recover the entire server from the images. It is easy to use.

In terms of features, whatever they are providing is more than sufficient for us. We are not exploiting this product up to a hundred percent.

Its price should be better. Their support should also be more customer-friendly, and they should train people like us so that we know more about the latest technologies and features. If there is some program and drive from their side to teach us, it is definitely going to help us.

Pricing and support are the most important features for mid-level companies. We are not implementing this solution for big tech companies.

We have been dealing with this solution for seven to eight years.

It is stable.

It is a scalable product. Very few people are using this product because of less awareness in our area. We are based in a small town in India where we don't have IT and IT companies. IT is a part of the production process. There are very few people who are using this service.

They should be more customer-friendly.

Its installation is almost straightforward. The basic installation is easy, but it also depends upon the customer requirements.

Its price is slightly higher for India. It is a little bit expensive on a monthly basis when considering the value of the Indian rupee.

There is no other perfect solution as compared to this solution. If you want to go for virtualization, there is no other stable and sustainable option.

I would rate VMware vSphere an eight out of ten.

Basically, our operation cluster is hiding under vSphere. 

vRealize Operations Manager is the most valuable feature, but it is not embedded in vSphere; it is a part of vSphere. It is used for forecasting and checking the consumption of CPU, memory, and other resources. It has the capability to do the forecast based on the history and give advice on consumption.

VMware vSphere is easy to use and easy to implement. Its learning curve is not sharp. Any engineer with little or medium knowledge of hypervisors and virtualizations can implement vSphere with a few clicks.

Its performance is an issue in version 6.5, but with the inclusion of HTML files in vSphere version 6.7, the experience is seamless. In version 6.7, VMware has included the HTML file protocol for the web browser or web console, which has changed the console's response and improved the performance.

We are using the trial version of vRealize Operations. It would be nice if some of those capabilities could be included in future versions of vSphere, not as a part of vRealize Operations, but in vSphere itself. It can provide some kind of forecast about your resource consumption based on the actual workload and modeling or testing scenarios. It can give you some advice or tips for the future growth of your infrastructure.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is stable enough. We are satisfied with its stability.

Its scalability seems to be straightforward. Obviously, you have to check if you have the correct license. Otherwise, you will have to change the license. Licensing can sometimes stop you from growing.

We currently don't have any plans to increase its usage.

We haven't raised any case with VMware so far. We didn't require any support from vSphere tech support.

We moved from legacy servers to VMware Hyperconverged Infrastructure. We were using the ESXi version from vSphere, and then we moved to the cluster version. We have multiple servers in one cluster.

One of the main reasons for choosing vSphere was that it is one of the most known hypervisors in the market. It is easy to use, easy to implement, and straightforward. It was very good for our proof of concept, and we went for it. Eventually, we moved to a cluster infrastructure. Obviously, we use vSphere as the hypervisor.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment took one to three days.

We bought the local service from vSphere. The experience was overall good.

We have three people for its maintenance. They are system integrators and infrastructure administrators.

We also tested Microsoft Hyper-V, but at that time, it was unstable. It was not stable enough to be implemented in our environment. That's why we didn't use it.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate VMware vSphere a ten out of ten.