vCenter Orchestrator Reviews

The solution is being used for its logs. 

The storage motion is a good feature. It is a very good tool. 

A feature to review and setup tasks should be added. 

I have been using vCenter Orchestrator since 2020. 

It is a stable Solution. I rate the solution eight out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. There are less than ten users using the solution. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes some few hours.  I rate the setup a nine out of ten.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

I like the tool's DNS feature. 

The solution's price could be cheaper. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The product is stable. 

vCenter Orchestrator is scalable. The server is located in four to five locations. 

vCenter Orchestrator's setup is very straightforward. If the setup is small, it can be completed in two days. 

I would rate vCenter Orchestrator a nine out of ten. 

I primarily use vCenter Orchestrator to automate workflows.

vCenter Orchestrator's best features are the workflows, integration with third-party applications, and the workflow library.

vCenter Orchestrator's debugging capacity could be improved. In the next release, vCenter Orchestrator should include self-healing capabilities and clustering.

I've been using vCenter Orchestrator for four to five years.

I would rate vCenter Orchestrator's stability eight out of ten.

vCenter Orchestrator's scalability is good - I would rate it eight out of ten.

vCenter Orchestrator's technical support is very helpful and responsive

The initial setup was quite easy and took a couple of minutes.

vCenter Orchestrator could be more affordable. However, there are no additional costs. I would rate its pricing as six out of ten.

I would recommend vCenter Orchestrator to other users and rate it eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution to run my monitoring tools. For the universities I work with, the primary use is to run everything and anything.

The solution's ability to template and easily implement are the most valuable features. It offers good replication as well. 

The solution needs to integrate with Cloud facilities like AWS and Azure. Containerization, which I believe they are working on, needs to improve too.

The solution is pretty stable. As long as you look after the boxes it's running on, and ensure they're connected, then you're fine. We don't plan to increase usage at this time.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. We have about 100 or so users on the solution currently.

I've never really had to use technical support, so I don't have any experience with them.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

Deployment took less than a day. However, I did not handle the implementation. We only require two people for maintenance.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

I would rate the solution eight 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.

We recently deployed a SAN in our office and the servers deploy on vCenter Orchestrator.

We also have a wireless deployment for different controllers, and we have many ERD solutions in our office that are hosted on VMware technology.

Many of our older, physical servers are being converted into VMs, and then we use vCenter Orchestrator with them as well.

The most valuable feature is the Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS).

The backup and recovery times are very quick.

The management tools are very good.

I think that vSAN can be improved.

The GUI should be enhanced in the future. 

I have been working with vCenter Orchestrator for probably three years.

vCenter Orchestrator is a stable product.

Scalability has not been an issue. In one project, we have between 2,500 and 3,000 users.

The VMware technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. Including the training that we had from the training center, our deployment took place over about six months.

We evaluated and analyzed several similar products and we selected VMware as being most suitable for our requirements.

My advice for anybody who is considering vCenter Orchestrator is to first collect all of their requirements or the requirements of the client. These are the basic steps and once everything is understood, the products can be properly selected.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

vCenter gives overall control of virtual methods.

The solution is user-friendly and easy to deploy.

The licensing cost could be reduced, it's quite expensive. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The customer support is very friendly and helpful. 

The initial setup is straightforward and took a few hours. We used a consultant for the deployment and it required one engineer. 

This is a good solution and from a performance perspective I rate it 10 out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for service enablement applications. Those are the applications running there.

The solution offers one central view. The VMotion is good. It's easy to put it into service and maintenance mode if needed. I'm an architect, however, my team is more hands-on day-to-day, and they know about the solution in detail.

The initial setup has been pretty straightforward, and the team, in general, has been happy with the process.

The solution is pretty stable and reliable. 

Technical support is very good at taking a deep dive into issues. 

On the KVM side, we really don't have anything. There we have a gap. It's a very small deployment on the KVM side, however, it would be ideal if we were able to properly use all the resources and get the full performance of the platform. 

On the orchestration side, we're lacking the KVM part as well.

There can be compatibility issues. We need to keep track of different versions of the software. For example, we're still on E6 I6 6.5. In some cases, we can't upgrade to Red Hat 8 yet, for compatibility reasons. Every time we do, we have to be applying HPE firmware and stuff. Sometimes we run into complications and we have to stage everything in the lab just to make sure all the versions are compatible. There's this forward and backward compatibility of different software you need to constantly be aware of. 

I've been dealing with the solution maybe for five years at this point. I've used it for a while now.

The solution is mostly stable, so long as there aren't compatibility issues between different pieces of software. Mostly, it's reliable. 

Typically, I don't deal with technical support issues. I'm not in that area. That said, it's my understanding that we have gotten a pretty good, deep analysis of the issues at hand when we have had tickets open in the past. My team seems satisfied with the level of support given to them.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's very simple and straightforward. 

Our team can handle it with ease. We don't need the assistance of integrators or consultants. 

Our customers are the ones that hold the licensing. We just provide services. Therefore, I cannot speak to any exact costs or licensing agreements. 

We provide services to customers. However, we are users of the product.

I don't know of any better VM environment. I would rate this solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities so far.