VMware Aria Automation Reviews

• Reliability
• Scalability

The product itself is future rich, because of the HA componentry. The DRS VMotion gives you the ability to lose physical hardware. It can predict to move workloads before hardware failures. That is a new feature with VMware. It senses the hardware is having issues. Another feature is it now has predictability built into it, which is something new.

The costing and pricing models of their product.

More than 15 years.

It is a stable product. You can run your Tier 1 and Tier 2 apps on it.

No issues.

When you are calling support, I would be considered more of an advanced user. When I am calling support, I have pretty much leveraged everything they have, like knowledge based articles and that type of thing. The support has been very good. When you call support, it actually works. Sometimes you get bounced around, and sometimes, you don't. I call support, and I get an answer, then you just kind of move on. 

We did have a previous solution 15 years ago, but we switched due to scalability.

The initial setup was straightforward. My mom could install it. 

Pricing needs to be improved.

No other options were evaluated. It is all based on the requirement, whichever problem you are trying to solve. A lot of the times the stuff I deal with is more on the enterprise side (larger). The product has been stellar. 

I have used the SMB Market as well; small media markets without issues. 

VMware is the pioneer of virtualization. They are way ahead of everybody else. Some of the other products have caught up, which has been fantastic because it has driven innovation. It is forcing the industry to evolve more quickly, innovate, and come up with better solutions. 

It is a very popular product. You have to do is you have to have a good understanding it. You can't just jump into it, especially half in. You have to understand what you are trying to solve. Have a good understanding of what you are trying to set up, like a defined solution.

• Automation
• Ability to deploy heavy workloads quickly
• Ease of use and the flexibility

• Ability to mimic more VCD functionality.
• Ability to share blueprints among tenants, or have a master blueprint repository, so you don't have to move the stuff between tenants. That's probably the number one feature.
• Improve functionality that we're looking for longterm.

It is very stable. It works well. It is easy to use once it's deployed, and is also easy to deploy.

We're starting small, but we see the ability to scale quickly and easily.

It's very good. I noticed with vRA, they are starting to ramp up more support. It started off slow, but it seems to be getting better.

Early on with version 6, it was very complex. When 7 was released, it was easier. Now, with 7.3 and cloud foundations (and everything), it's a lot easier.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

1. Reputation.
2. Support, reliability, and longevity of the company.

Being able to provide automation for my customers, essentially having guard rails on what they can deploy and how much it is they're deploying in my environment.

We're still rolling it out. It's starting to help a little bit and people are starting to be able to see the power of it. I expect it will help, but we're still early in the journey.

Improvements in the API. Make it easier because that's where we tend to struggle when we were working with other groups. We spend time trying to digest the API to figure out how to actually consume it.

The UI could stand a lot of improvement as well. It doesn't look like a modern UI, so it needs some work.

I've been using it for four or five years.

But in my current employer, I've only been there for about eight months. They had it, but nobody was actually pushing the solution.

I haven't really had any issues with stability over the last four or five years that I've been using it.

We tend to do smaller deployments than huge deployments of it because we're usually targeting multiple groups.

I haven't contact technical support yet, but I do have a contact with VMware that I feel is knowledgeable.

I didn't set up this environment, but I have done the setup previously.

The process has gotten better. It's still a bit of complex. Once it's setup, you shouldn't have to touch it much.

Upgrades have gotten easier as the solution has progressed. It used to be much more difficult. Now, the process is a lot more streamlined.

Not applicable. The company already had the product when they brought me onboard.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Features
• Stability
• A community who know the product and can share information about it.

The most valuable features are:

• How it takes what we used to do in the same process as manual steps, and automates them, such as creating servers.
• It's self-service for creating your own virtual machine.

It's shortened down our SLA's for VMs. When vendors request an application for various VM's, we used to take a two week process (approximately) from building a VM, QAing, and building it. Now, it can be done in a matter of two days, at max, thus, shortening the process.

Implementation directly with our SRM product, because we know what the other products are out there that VM is offering, such as Site Recovery Manager (SRM). There are ties which you can customize to put them into that, but it would be nice if it came as an out-of-the-box feature.

It's very stable. Just like any other project, it does have its quirks and kinks, but like anything else you work through it. You have to customize it to get it used to your environment. There are growing pains.

We recently went through two or three upgrades, and now we're doing an upgrade for the most recent version. In that regard, it's pretty scalable. The way we can actually manage our virtual machines directly through the interface is somewhat of a gain as well.

They are very knowledgeable of their product. This all goes back to customizing our kind of needs, because everybody's needs are not a one size fits all. You kind of have to customize it to fit to your environment. They have been helpful with this. Also, when we run into any issues, which have not been many, they've been very helpful with resolving them.

We actually have an onsite resident, which helps as well.

Because the way technology was going, such a physical footprint, people are now going virtual. When we realized that, we started getting a lot more virtual questions as opposed to physical, which is a good thing. We realized we needed to start pumping out these VMs at a much faster rate to meet with our demands. That's what steered us toward this product.

It was a pretty straightforward implementation, but it was just mostly customizing it. We house somewhere around 3000+ virtual machines in our environment. It's hard to customize for that large of a footprint. We have a team who handles the automation piece, since we have such a large virtual footprint.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Look at the support they provide, the backing of their product, and so on.
• Have a big company name, like VM, where they have stability.
• Fitting the your needs - nobody wants a product that they are never gonna use.

If you get a lot of virtual machine requests, this is the product to get.

• Web front-ends
• Orchestrator scripting engine

We're automating a lot of OS builds. The front-end gives us a way for users to go and request those services and the orchestrator pirate lets us automate a lot of the functions involved in them.

It's like a streamline deposit made more available.

I want to see them get rid of the IS component and make it a VMware appliance. There are a lot of requirements for Windows servers, which is not good for our environment. This makes configuration and installation tough.

It's cumbersome to set up. It requires a lot of Window servers, which we don't like and the external load balancer configurations, which we also don't like. But overall it does have an HA solution, so that's better than no HA solution.

We got VMware resources to guide us and help us with the deployment.

It has an HA configuration, which is pretty good. It could be better.

You can scale out deployment so that's good as well. You can just tack on more Windows servers. That's good for scale out.

I'd give them a seven out of 10.

We get a lot of run around in terms of technical support. Usually, first tech we get can't help us. We end up going down the pipeline to get someone that can.

We're pretty heavily invested in VMware, so there was no competition.

We built an SDDC environment and we needed a way for customers to consume services out of it.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was a complex product.

vRA requires a lot of development work. It's not something you just set up, then it works. You have to tailor it to your environment and develop stuff to do with it. There is a lot of development effort with the product.

If you are looking at implementing the product, hire a Dev team.

No, we're using vRA and other VMware products.

They're the pioneers of virtualization.

The vSphere stack and all their other products are integrated with our core stack, which is vSphere. That's really the big reason why we like all their other products.

Configuration management: We were using SaltStack for orchestration in liaison with OpenStack. It was good for Linux machines, but the Windows experience was fragile.

They put in a few patches for Windows machine orchestration, but the experience was still painful.

Hands down, the main thing for improvement is Windows orchestration. Repo is very limited and multiple issues occur when installing vendor products.

Other areas would be to build test cases, with ease, for states. I haven’t found one. SaltStack had a focus only on Linux from the very beginning. Windows has always been a sore point. The repo for Windows was very inadequate and if I am right, I heard a SaltStack guy himself say that he is not very fond of Windows orchestration.

Another area of improvement is stability. Vendor products that required multiple customization had many handicaps, such as lack of LDAP or Active Directory support and, biggest of all, inadequate repo for Windows states.

We have used this solution for almost two years.

There were lots of stability issues, and we did hire a consultant from SaltStack.

We did have to upgrade the infra running salt-master quite frequently.

The setup was complex. The salt-master topography was master-minion, but then expanded to syndic, then back to master-minion. We did have to juggle, but that may be the shifting overall cloud architecture. It looked more like a chicken-egg problem, but we did have to revise the Salt architecture frequently.

I was not in the decision-making process, but I was told they evaluated Ansible. I am not sure the degree of depth in which it was evaluated.

Stay away from Windows orchestration. Have an alternative for orchestrating Windows machines. Think about how to prepare test cases when things change. The breaks spread like wildfire.

• Interoperability between operating systems with the ability to perform mass automation with triggering
• Integration with many vendors

These features are valuable because I need them to complete the work assigned to me.

The GUI is clunky and hard to use. It could be more user friendly.

• The UI can get complicated very quickly when you start using SaltStack for a large number of machines (100+).
• The organization of the buttons / layout can make it difficult to search for the machine you are looking for. Even with the search function, it's difficult to determine the exact state in the correct order
• The UI should be organized in a more tree-like structure, starting from the initial state (root) with corresponding states being added after (node).

I have used it for six months.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

I recommend SaltStack because, for SysOps or DevOps users, automation is a key part of getting your product out and allows for faster time to market.

• Configuration management
• Remote execution
• Grain & mine

I like knowing what state my machines are in, and I like being able to change their state all at once.

Some of what we do, we could not do without SaltStack.

Sometimes it feels like there are more moving parts than is necessary, and maybe something simpler would do.

I have used it for two years.

As long as the versions matched, we have not encountered any horrible stability issues so far. :)

The opposite: It does better with more nodes than it does with fewer, in my opinion.

The docs, though sometimes cryptic, are excellent and thorough. I haven't personally used their technical support services.

I previously used Puppet. I switched because our shop here likes using Python solutions over Ruby ones.

Initial setup was more complicated than Puppet, but the solution was also more comprehensive. Setup was worth the trouble.

SaltStack is completely open source, though you might consider SaltStack Enterprise as a way to get up and running more quickly.

Before choosing this product, Ansible and Puppet were brought up. Ansible seemed too small of a tool for what we needed and Puppet was written in Ruby, so they were discounted.

Thoroughly research how SaltStack works; that knowledge has helped me a lot.
SaltStack is a one-stop-shop for your datacenter's management, monitoring and state control needs. Using it that way allows you to get the most out of the tool. It is configuration management, but also orchestration, monitoring, and has reactive capabilities.