vCenter Orchestrator Reviews

In our first program, we used the VCF to provide searches for our clients, then we opened our service to the public, so we changed from VCF to a VC and VCB program. We have an infrastructure software data center that we need to manage and handle all our clients' requests. 

We use PCD and vCenter. On top of that, we provide the PCD as a service for our clients. We give them a portal to access the resources they request. The services include site recovery, policy updates, etc. 

The most crucial feature of vCenter is its scalability. We can use it to expand our network, so we don't have to report our client devices. The network configuration features are also helpful because we can migrate entire networks. 

For example, we have a disaster recovery site that stores all our network configurations, so our clients can move from one site to another. We can use load balancing for the same problem. If the server or hypervisor is fully loaded, we can easily move some devices or VMs to another site.

We use the VLS Orchestrator with vCenter and create templates, allowing our clients to access and collect administration for their services. They manage the IT-critical stuff they implement, so we can provide them with pre-built solutions and templates.

VMware tools would benefit from more automation. When installing our devices and servers, we often need to install the VMware tools manually. This process should be automated during the VM installation process.

We've been using Orchestrator for seven or eight months.

Orchestrator is stable, but we have some problems with access. There are some performance issues when we use the VMs. For example, there is some latency when I access the management device, but the device itself is stable and working very well. 

I rate VMware support four out of five.

Positive

VMware is the first virtual solution, system, or ecosystem that we used.

The installation process was smooth except for a few complications with DNS and the certificate, but you typically need a lot of staff to help you install it. We don't need a dedicated person to perform maintenance. When a problem happens, we can call support to fix it, or we do it ourselves remotely if we have experience.

We used a third-party consultant to help us implement the solution.

The licensing module is somewhat complex. Calculating the cost is complicated. Many of our clients are unclear about the billing system and the traffic metering. I think we pay for revenue sharing on the VCB program, but we had a VCF program in the beginning. I don't have enough information about licensing. But when we converted from the VCF to the VCB program, the licensing module changed to revenue sharing.

I rate vCenter Orchestrator nine out of 10. It's a great solution that can help any starting company that needs to provide vCloud to their customers. It's scalable, stable, technical, and responsive. If you're deploying vCenter, you need to understand the infrastructure.

I used vCenter Orchestrator for our servers, such as database, Active Directory, and antivirus servers. Our internal servers have approximately five hosts and we are hosting approximately 19 servers on them.

I have been using the vCenter Orchestrator for approximately 10 years.

vCenter Orchestrator is very reliable and stable.

The scalability of the vCenter Orchestrator is not easy to do because it is depending on the hardware that is used. You cannot scale the solution easily.

We have approximately 150 people in my organization using this solution. Our company is a law firm, people from multiple roles are using it, such as administrative lawyers, attorneys, IT, sales, HR, and accounting. All departments are using the solution because all our servers are deployed using VMware. We don't have any standalone service. The solution is widely used in our company and we have plans to expand.

I have used the support a couple of times in the online communities. I have not used professional support from VMware.

I have used Hyper-V previously.

I did not do the initial setup. However, it was complex at the beginning.

The concept of hyper-convergence is smart. I don't know if it can be applied with less cost to be more affordable for small or medium-sized companies. The cost is a very important factor for it. We are currently depending on SAN storage. However, the hyper-converged solutions are depending on the storage within the hosts, such as vSAN in the VMware. It is a smart solution.

I am looking to expand our operation. However, approximately two years ago  I was searching for a flexible solution and I came to the hyper-converged solution. I was doing some comparisons, but as it was very expensive to replace our current environment. I'm searching for a solution to somehow expand our environment or do another environment parallel to our current one.

I would advise others to try solutions, such as Hyper-V. I have tried it in a test environment and I think it is very promising and it is easy to use. However, VMware is very powerful, stable, and very reliable, but I advise them to try  Hyper-V and VMware.

I rate vCenter Orchestrator a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is availability.

The solution’s pricing and integration could be improved.

I have been working with vCenter Orchestrator since 2014.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Installing the solution is very easy if you have experience with the tool.

vCenter Orchestrator is a very expensive solution. If you talk with customers about other solutions like Nutanix, their prices are also very high.

If you have an existing VMware solution, integrating it into another solution is not easy. However, if you have a small company with a VMware solution, you can easily change it because you also need experience with other solutions.

I would recommend the solution to other users because VMware is a big company with very good licensing. More people can choose VMware as it provides good features available to new customers.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We operate two critical data centers, Data Center A and Data Center H, in an active-active setup. These centers serve 300 remote sites, with all our applications and local servers sending data to both. We prioritize data security using protections like IPS, IDS, and XDR. Data distribution is handled by load balancers through DNSX in our virtual cloud, connecting to application servers. We also have Backup Data Centers ready to take over if A and H encounter issues, ensuring uninterrupted data services.

The most valuable feature for us is the performance stability of vCenter Orchestrator, especially in complex situations, making it excellent for managing virtual machines. For smaller to medium-sized data centers, we also use Proxmox, a German software for server virtualization. Additionally, we prioritize data backup and recovery, with independent data centers located about 200 kilometers away from our main centers, Data Center A and Data Center H. These main centers operate in an active-active mode, while B and C serve as backups.

There are a few areas that could use improvement. Firstly, the pricing could be more competitive. Secondly, we would like more flexibility in sizing data storage and virtual machines, as the current options aren't very adaptable. The management of vCenter could be less automatic and more transparent for our experienced technicians. Lastly, our data stores could be better integrated with third-party options, as they don't fully meet our high-end requirements. vCenter has limited management capabilities, causing problems when you have plenty of space and memory but can't monitor their usage well. The main issues revolve around data storage and management, driven by an overly automatic and simplistic approach that is not ideal for complex or expanding setups.

I have been using vCenter Orchestrator for two years.

It is a scalable solution. We have approximately 4,000 users of the solution. We also have a team of five people who maintain the solution 24/7.

The technical support is customer-oriented but not excellent in terms of speed and knowledge. It is reasonably good but not outstanding. I would give it a six out of ten.

Neutral

We have previously used Proxmox but switched to vCenter because Proxmox is not suitable for larger applications. In addition to using vCenter, nowadays we also use OpenStack.

The initial setup was extremely easy because vCenter handled many things automatically. However, it is not ideal when you need specific configurations, as it may not give you the level of control you require. We obtain licenses through a digital locker or VMware purchase orders, and deploying them is easy. However, there are some issues with data store management. While the system is generally stable, it lacks flexibility for configuration and monitoring. This can be problematic when adding many VMware machines and increasing data store capacity, as it doesn't provide clear warnings or limits.

I have definitely seen ROI with vCentre.

VMware's licensing can be complex with many products, making it hard to find a cost-effective solution. Handling costs, support, and efficiency can be expensive and challenging, so it is an important aspect to think about. Sometimes it seems like VMware offers many products just to generate more revenue, even if some of them end up being unnecessary.

My recommendation for those starting with vCenter is that once the automatic installation is complete, the graphical user interface is user-friendly and easy to use. Overall, I would rate vCenter a seven out of ten.

I use the solution for automation purposes.

The solution has the best workflow creation feature.

The solution's analytics feature could be better.

I have been using the solution for four years.

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten.

The solution's scalability is a seven or eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support team takes a long time to escalate the issues.

Neutral

The solution's initial setup process is a seven or eight out of ten.

I rate the solution's pricing an eight or nine.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it a seven out of ten.

I have used this solution through all of the generations from 4.1, 5, 5.1, 5.5, 6, 6.5, and 6.7.

Our primary use case was for the deployment of a virtual machine with a specific naming convention. I have my own naming convention for applications such as Active Directory.

The deployment model depends on the environment. For VMware, I have only used it in private cloud deployments. In Asia, it is a public cloud using Microsoft Azure. 

The most valuable feature is workflow automation. I was interested in data and provisioning servers.

The migration from site-to-site needs to be improved.

It should be easier to automate tasks in bulk, such as instantiating several VMs.

I would like to be able to automate RDMs for clusters.

This solution needs to have more built-in workflows.

For many of the algorithms it was stable, but we had some problems. I think that it is more of a management issue, so I would rate it at eighty percent stable.

This solution is scalable.

The technical support for this solution is good.

I used another solution prior to this one, but it was not for VMware. It was for Microsoft VMM.

We also use an Oracle solution for private clouds. We did not switch. It depends on the user environment.

When you initially set up this solution, you implement your own workflows. It would be easier if they had more built-in.

The deployment takes not longer than thirty minutes.

My advice is that Orchestrator will ease your life in your tasks. Once you teach yourself this product, it will make difficult jobs relatively easy.

It is a good solution, but it needs the capability of bulk deployment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The solution manages workloads and templates very well.

The solution could be integrated with third-party hypervisors.

I have used the solution for many years.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

It is a highly scalable solution. I rate its scalability a ten.

The solution's technical support is good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup process is easy. It takes an hour or two to complete.

We implemented the solution in-house.

We renew the solution's license every one or two years.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We have a separate team that is responsible for managing the vCenter. We Are a product for the general public.

vCenter Orchestrator is used for everything, any database can be used with any middleware. Everything is managed through vCenter.

I would like to have an interface that can manage both on-premises and cloud solutions from a single console, where we can easily manage the resources that are being used or at least applications. Whereby clicking here and there from on-premises to cloud, or cloud to on-premises, depending on the requirements. If that can be accomplished, it will be extremely beneficial.

I have been working with vCenter Orchestrator for more than five or six years.

Currently, we have the most recent version, and we used both Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS for the cloud.

vCenter Orchestrator is a stable solution.

vCenter Orchestrator is scalable.

We have approximately 50,000 users in our organization.

We have excellent technical support. They have always been helpful when we have needed them.

We are working with Red Hat versions six, seven, and eight as well as BigFix, and JBOSS. JBOSS, on the other hand, is used by a different team, a middleware team. We are system administrators, and we are using the infrastructure component, which is the operating system.

For managing, we are using VMware cloud management, vRA.

The initial setup is straightforward. We are experienced with this solution. We have multiple data centers.

We pay a yearly fee, based on our entries. For now, the price is fine. We can't say whether it's expensive or not until we compare it to other products.

I would rate vCenter Orchestrator a nine out of ten.