VMware Aria Operations Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is to gather analytics. We don't use it very often but it's working and collecting data. 

It has helped my organization by running analytics on use cases, performance, and by running clusters. It has also helped reduce the time it takes to troubleshoot issues for the VDIs. 

I find this solution to be intuitive and user-friendly, for the most part. It's the type of thing where if you don't use it, you lose it.

I have found this solution to be stable. We have never had any downtime. 

I've never had an issue with scalability. 

We've had to use their technical support and we've found them to be great. 

I would rate this solution a seven. We don't use it enough for me to give it a ten. There's a lot of value to it but we don't fully exercise it. It's a great product depending on what everyone's needs are. 

What's valuable to us is that we can create virtual routers and NICs. We setup multiple vROps for virtual routers within our Ericson cluster, as well as multiple NICs. Also, scalability is very good and deployment was relatively easy using templates.

Additionally, deploying vROps allowed us to implement a solution in software that we were unable to achieve using the physical devices.

It was also an advantage that we could stay with one platform and one vendor.

We really benefited by using templates, which made deployment much quicker.

Integration with OpenStack would be a very useful improvement.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

vROps can scale quickly and easily. We have around 20-30 hosts running really large applications.

We used technical support quite a lot. They worked hard to find solutions to our problems and helped us with product updates. But, I think they need to improve.

We were using VMware for a long time, so we just continued with their products.

If you scale out the environment and want to use vROps, this is a tool you should look at.

I like the reporting capabilities.

Being able to figure out trends, i.e. somebody reports issues and uses vROps to figure what’s going on.

There's none that I can think of, but I don't think I've used it enough to offer an opinion.

From a monitoring perspective, it's stable, and seems to always run.

I expect it to scale, being a VMware product. They seem to be good at that. I haven’t run into products that have limited scalability.

I've not had to use it.

I wasn't involved in the setup.

It's solid and gives us the info we need, and are looking for. Learn about it before you implement it.

We use it to monitor performance.

It's been helpful in troubleshooting certain CPU and memory issues. In terms of uptime, it helps us to keep a better eye on our infrastructure, to be proactive before an outage occurs.

I can go back a little bit, a week or a month, look at the history to troubleshoot.

It's also intuitive and user-friendly.

It's pretty user-friendly, but it could always be better as far as the interface goes, clicking around, and having to go back to different screens. The navigation could be better.

The stability has been pretty good.

I have not had to use the technical support.

We used SCOM, Microsoft's Operations Manager, and we still use it in a supplemental way. vROps is a little easier to use, it's easier to get the information.

Figure out what you need, what your requirements are, and see if the product meets that.

Single pane of glass for metrics. This helps us see if we have issues with network storage, compute.

It's enabled us to more quickly troubleshoot end user problems.

Being able to take and work off activity between it and other products.

Being an all-inclusive appliance, it's been very stable for us.

We haven't had to scale.

I haven't used it for vROps.

We've spent far too much time troubleshooting datacenter issues and once we implemented vROps we were able to save a lot of time.

I was involved and it was very straightforward.

No.

Looking for vendors, the most important thing to consider is their support.

The capacity planning: Purchasing hardware takes a long time for us. This way you can get where you're actually going to be at six months down the road.

We are on an older version. It hasn't improved any mission critical systems.

Lack of documentation.

I wish the documentation was better for the solution. When we first deployed it, there were very few resources online. That's why we don't use it that much.

It's fine. It's stable.

We have a contact, but we have never used him/her.

We weren't using a different solution.

It was easy to set up.

Use the community. I find it helpful.

I would tell others to avoid version 6.0.2 and go for 6.6. It seems a lot nicer.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: reputation.

The blueprint catalog. It's easy to use the interface when you login.

For doing automation.

I would like to see the UI improved.

For the next release, I would like to see:

• Easier setup
• Easy installation
• Easier configuration.

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

The technical support is good.

We had a central cloud platform and also the old vCenter cloud.

We moved to vROps because of the technology trend. Everybody was going to private cloud and public cloud. We wanted to have a private cloud and public cloud that we could hook with a public cloud.

I was involved in the initial setup. It wasn't straightforward. They need to make it more user-friendly.

Citrix.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: initial cost.

• Recommendations on CPU memory
• Utilization

It helps us to stay on top of recent risk allocation based on a recommendation from what we're reviewing.

It's pretty stable.

We haven't scaled it out, but it seems pretty scalable.

We haven't used it.