VMware vSphere Reviews

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.

It is a private cloud and it's on a standalone Bare Metal system. On the private cloud environment we provide virtualized computers for different users.

The features that I have found most valuable are the overall good ease of use and the good interface which makes it very easy to migrate from one bare metal to another. These are the two things which I like about it. There are certain things as well which I don't like.

In terms of what could be improved, they should improve their storage management part. vSphere has its own file system type, called VMSS, and that file system doesn't report on proper data usage or things like that. There are certain loopholes wherein it sometimes shows you erroneous data. Again, their VMSS file system, their data storage management system, and its reporting must be improved a lot.

There are certain features which are called VCE which are available as a separate suite for this VMware cloud. The networking is almost integrated within the vSphere so it would be really helpful for the implementation team if they also had an orchestration for a different storage. There might be multiple OEM storage in the back-end, for example, that could connect with the vSphere while the vSphere shows it to the front-end user as a single storage. There is a lot of scope in terms of managing hybrid storage at the back-end of vSphere.

I have been using VMware vSphere for around six years.

VMware vSphere is stable in terms of the computer virtualization and it's also scalable. We can go ahead and make HA clusters, but as I said, in terms of the storage stability, there are certain issues because sometimes it gets confused when showing you the actual status. The back-end of the CLI shows you certain data and the front-end shows you different data. That's where there are certain issues with the reliability, but otherwise, it is quite robust and it's scalable.

We have more than 60 people using the different platforms. The functions include several web developers and a lot of finance applications which are running on Oracle and on different RDBMS's.

They have a wonderful technical support team. Additionally, there are a lot of blogs, forums and community support available over the internet where you do get a lot of support as well. So it's not always necessary to reach out to their technical assistance team. They also have wonderful documentation available that is quite helpful in terms of resolving a lot of issues.

This was a first implementation of vSphere for us. They have a hybrid environment where there is a Hyper-V running their Oracle with VirtualBox running across. We found this to be much stronger and much easier to deploy and hence we thought to continue with it.

Also it supports a wide range of operating systems.

The initial setup is very simple, not complex.

I would say from a completely blank bare metal to the private cloud, it took us around a few hours. Not more than that.

We implemented it ourselves.

I would recommend VMware vSphere to potential buyers. I will always do that. It's highly recommended to go with the entire vSphere Cloud Suite rather than only just going with the Hypervisor. But if you go with the entire suite, it's really wonderful.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate VMware vSphere an eight.

The solution is primarily used to house VMs, virtual machines.

Virtualization changes radically the IT landscape. Rare are our customers who have not implemented it. vSphere is #1 in hypervisors and offers the flexibility and the fastness our customers need.

VM models is a great feature. It allows to create VMs very fast and already patched with the different configurations that the are needed.

The ease to move a VM from a host to another or even to another storage/DC is very convenient. That all this can be done while users work on the VMs is awsome.

The graphical vSphere vCenter interface is now in HTML. I'm not very found of it. Sometimes you can't find items and you need to log in to the different hosts.

Some work has to be done with this admin console.

I have many years (lost the count...) of experience with this solution, beginning with version 4.0, then 5.0, 5.5, 6.7 and finally 7.0 and use it daily.

The stability has been very, very good. I didn't have any crashes. There aren't bugs or glitches. I find it to be a very, very strong architecture.

In terms of scalability, I haven't really had the opportunity to address this as my customers are not very big companies and we have relatively small data centers.

I've never had to call VMware. You basically can find everything on the web. VMware's  website is very good and there is a lot of information everywhere about vSphere on the web with real experts of the product.

No

The setup is straightforward, only a few questions to answer, and you have your hypervisor ready !

Always in house.

The cost of the solution is relatively low. VMware proposes the Essentials kits which are very affordable for SMB companies.

I didn't really evaluate any other solutions. I haven't even really looked at Hyper-V, although my clients sometimes ask about it.

We are implementors and our customers don't sometime have any dedicated IT guy.  But, as vSphere works well once implemented, there's relativally less to do.

We use vSphere primarily for data center solutions. We migrated most of the physical workloads to a virtual environment. Even physical data center migrations were made possible because of VMware workloads. We had replication workloads using such technology for DR purposes. I've also deployed a Nutanix cluster with the VMware Hypervisor.

I like the standard features. 

The price could be better.

I've been using VMware vSphere for eight or nine years.

It's a stable product. I have a little reservation about their vSAN product, which I don't think is well suited for co-work loads that require performance. In that aspect, I tend to favor Nutanix, but other than for vSAN, I think it's a good product.

It's a scalable solution.

Technical support is very good.

The initial setup becomes simpler by the day. It's very easy. But it wasn't easy before and was pretty tedious. But these days, it's easy.

The deployment time depends on the workload and how large the environment is. If there are a lot of hypervisors and migration work, it could take anywhere from two to six days or more to install and deploy.

I work as an integrator, so I implemented this solution.

It could be cheaper. But not only cheaper because Nutanix's hypervisors are free of charge out of the box. You don't even have to pay for the hypervisor's enterprise version. Given that, I don't think VMware should be charging so much for the hypervisor. The hypervisor is a commodity now.

I would recommend it to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give VMware vSphere a nine.