CloudStack Reviews

Development and test environment for customer.

We saved on cost of hardware.

You can build your own cloud and make it customizable with APIs.

The zones need to be more stable. During moving and first deployment there were a lot of issues.

It is easy to set up, unlike OpenStack (in 2013). It provides good KVM virtualization support.

The advanced network allows for creating a private network for better isolation of VMs.

CloudStack provides an easy way to have high availability (HA) of the virtual machines and helps with a better SLA.

The web UI can be improved. It is too complex, and not trivial for the average user.

Since 2013, I have been using Apache CloudStack 4.1.1.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I have contributed to the CloudStack project at ASF; I'm a PMC member, so the support is self-made.

The setup was straightforward. The installation guide is easy to follow. The concepts are easy to understand and are based on the standard mechanisms.

It's free (open source).

I have used KVM or XenServer as hypervisors with CloudStack. These virtualization technologies are most supported on CloudStack.

Legacy support for a previous CloudStack environment.

It works, and pretty much always has. Reliability and support for enterprise features, with a multi-tenant interface, makes CloudStack a very compelling solution.

• Stability
• Centralized management design that scales well
• Transparent interoperability with different hypervisors and manufacturers

We also have OpenStack in production, but many of our staff members prefer CloudStack for the reasons mentioned above (less complexity, less failure-prone). There are reasons we use both though – different workloads on different systems.

Lack of support for third-party software vendors such as Veeam and Zerto creates limitations on comprehensive offerings which would include backup and disaster recovery.

We had some issues with XenServer an OVS, but that wasn’t really a CloudStack problem.

No scalability issues. CloudStack has actually scaled quite well for our needs.  Even though it’s more monolithic in design compared to OpenStack, we have had no issues scaling, and it actually scales with far less complexity as a result.

Community support is very good, but after Citrix divested CloudPlatform to Accelerite, commercial support was absolutely atrocious. We actually investigated third parties like ShapeBlue because the support from Accelerite was so bad and made the decision to part ways with Accelerite completely when our contract was up for renewal.

Complex, but all clouds are complex so that is to be expected. I and one other community member actually write a bunch of documentation for first-timers to help them through the process, because the networking always threw everybody.

Obviously OSS is free, so you can’t beat that when it comes to price. For the commercial support options, they are extremely fair for quality of the solution.

Yes, we evaluated other solutions, and we run CloudStack along with OpenStack in two different environments for different reasons. In general, my preference is for CloudStack because it is less complex, has fewer moving parts and has demonstrated better stability for our needs.

I have used it for close to eight years, since Cloud.com, prior to the Citrix acquisition.

Get commercial assistance from an experienced consultant who has deployed it before. Choices made early on in a cloud deployment can lock you into a design that may be undesirable in the future, but near impossible to change if implemented incorrectly early on.

We use it for our enterprise cloud.

All our development is done on this environment because we deploy around 3,000 instances every day. We couldn’t do that on any public service because of the budget.

The feature of the Apache CloudStack, IaaS.

Multi-deployments.

API support, LB-integration with NetScaler for auto-scaling support, and the flexibility to configure/represent the physical network (VPC, guest and network offerings). NFV light making it possible to have LB, FW, PortFoward and private networks is also very useful.

It helps some business areas to test their ideas and innovation initiatives with freedom and more speed (and better time to market).

More integration with third-party products (we know that OpenStack has a better level of integration).

3 years.

No.

No.

Very nice. We can leverage community forums and we had some support from ShapeBlue.

We've tested OpenStack, VMware vCloud Director and VMware Cloud Automation Center. We chose CloudStack because we saw it with a better TCO ratio, balancing innovation, and starting the DevOps culture with a low operational overhead.

It was simple, taking into consideration that any private cloud deployment is intrinsically complex. We could manage to decrease the network complexity representing the physical network with VLANs mapping to guest, isolated and VPC networks.

Openstack, vCloud Director and vCAC.

Attention to network design and secondary storage.