VMware Cloud Director Reviews

vCloud Director is used for our customers and my company for the cloud.

I have been using vCloud Director for approximately one year.

vCloud Director is a stable solution.

We have approximately three people using vCloud Director in my company.

The support provided by the vCloud Director is good.

The initial setup of the vCloud Director was not complex and not easy, it was in the middle range of difficulty. It could be made easier. 

My advice to others is for them to check the requirements before implementation.

I rate vCloud Director a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to manage our virtual machines and basic settings.

We can run it on self-hosted systems, and we are happy with the stability of vCloud Director.

We use vCloud Director along with Terraform, and it's difficult to make them work together. It takes a long time to deploy virtual machines with Terraform in vCloud Director. For example, it can take about one or two hours to create 10 machines. It takes up a lot of our DevOps' and engineers' time in comparison to that with other solutions. This is an area that they should work on and improve.

I've been dealing with this solution for two to three years.

I'm pretty happy with the stability of this solution.

The licensing costs are pretty high, but it might depend on the size of the company.

I would rate vCloud Director at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We are VMware Verified Cloud providers. So we run vCloud Director. We run NSX (Network Security Platform). We run the whole suite of VMware products to host our customers' various applications.  

Our primary use case is to enable our customers to use the vCloud Director platform to drive the portal that they create using compute resources from their side. So, it is used for the automation of resources in the VMware on our VMware platform for customers to create Virtual Datacenters.  

Our customers host their applications with us like they would host it with AWS or Azure. So, in terms of that, the most valuable part of the product for us is the ease of creating resources for them to run their applications and infrastructure for doing business.  

The first thing that I would say if someone asked me for what nice feature I would like to see, it would be a billing feature. To be able to automate our billing for clients would be a nice feature for us and save us a lot of time.  

I have been using vCloud Director for eleven years.  

The stability of the product is very good. It is better than just 'good.'  

We manage our scalability using multiple pods. We have a certain number of servers and available storage, and when a VMware customer gets to a certain size, we just install a whole new pod. We manage our scalability that way rather than scaling sideways which we do not want to do. If we scale sideways and you have an issue on your platform, then all your customers are affected. We manage the risk for our customers and our uptime by scaling out the pods.  

In my position, I do not deal with technical support directly, but I have not heard any bad stories about them. Based on that, I would say the technical support must be pretty good.  

The initial installation and setup are very quick. It takes minutes rather than hours or days.  

I can not tell you exactly how much it costs, but I know our bill is in the millions (rand) every month.  

I think the product has come a long way since its introduction. It is stable now. In the early days, there were some teething problems. At this point, I would definitely recommend it. It has become a mature product now and it works well.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the vCloud product as a good eight or nine-out-of-ten.  

We use it for hosting our customers: a single environment with a single GUI. Our customers are known to have compute and Eos infrastructure cells. 

We use it to replicate VMs for our customers from one data center to another data center.

With vCloud Director, our customers can use the VMs:

• They can destroy them.
• They can create new ones.
• They can change them.

They can do this in simplest and quickest way possible.

• Its simplicity
• It is powerful.

You can use it for a few customers. However, if you use it for a lot of customers, it is too heavy for this solution.

Concurrent users use tends to go slowly.

The technical support is super.

We decided to automate our actions.

The initial setup was complex because we had more than one solution to implement.

For VMware, we hired an engineer for a couple of days.

We are able to provision new clients faster. Every month, we take on more customers.

HPE and VMware were on our shortlist.

We have also used Microsoft SPLA.

We use vRealize Orchestrator with vCloud Director for creating work flows. You can automate your work.

Using the self-service capabilities, our customers can quickly use the product with instructions and learn it within an hour.

Our primary use case is for our clients to manage their infrastructure.

This solution has helped us make money and provision our clients faster. 

We have found the multi-tenants to be a valuable feature. 

I think that the data protection, disaster recovery, and container features are the future. We work with the cloud Availability product. We want our clients to use it but we have had a lot of problems with it so we'll wait for the next version. 

It's very stable.

Scalability is stable. I have the ability to scale horizontally. 

The GSS engineers are good. 

We analyzed the markets and our clients. We gathered some feedback from our clients and after that, we decided on this solution. 

The initial setup was complex.

We integrated in-house. 

vRealize Orchestrator is an expensive tool. 

We looked at VMware and Open Source.

I would rate this solution an eight. It has a lot of features in the roadmap, maybe in a few years, I can give it a ten. 

I would advise someone looking into this solution to test your environment and to determine whether or not this solution is suitable for you. This solution was a good decision for our clients and we get good feedback from them. 

This solution is used for hosting customers and providing multi-tenancy so that we can have shared infrastructures used by multiple customers.

We have our own organization. We have a private cloud that we host, and we onboard customers on that private cloud.

It's a cloud-based solution.

There are currently more than 40 customers that are hosted on the private cloud across the US, UK, and Canada.

The most valuable features are the multi-tenancy and multi-site configuration. It's very efficient. The virtual machine deployment and segregation of customers due to multi-tenancy is also very simplified. That is the reason we chose this product for hosting the private cloud.

The integration between components could be improved. The cloud solution does not comprise a single product. If you look at Azure or AWS, they have tightly integrated all the components in the backend, and they just provide a UI. With VMware, we just have to integrate all products of VMware together and then provide a UI to the customer. 

If some component of the UI isn't working, in the backend we have to find out, is this vCloud availability the problem? Or is RabbitMQ the problem? This kind of integration is supposed to be done by the service provider, but the integration should be pretty tight between all the components, which form a private cloud.

I have been using this solution for almost 12 years.

The stability is good but not excellent because of the interoperability between different components of VMware products, which form a private cloud. The interoperability needs to be improved between the different components of the private cloud.

Scalability-wise, it's a pretty good product. We can scale to multiple regions, and we can also increase the number of sales as required. If the customers in a specific region are too many and there is a lot of access, we just need to add more vCloud Director sales for customers.

Technical support needs to improve because the private cloud is comprised of multiple solutions. A customer has to log to identify which product is having problems, and then log a call with a vendor. The support from the vendor is not very good. For some of the cases, we have to chase them for almost a month to get a resolution.

We previously used VLS Automation earlier and multi-tenancy was also quite simple over there, but the only thing was the SSO integration with the multi-tenancy was not consistent. That's the reason we switched from VLS Automation to the private cloud, vCloud Director.

Initial setup was pretty simple. For deployment, we used three or four people across six regions.

We use around 25 people to maintain the solution across six regions.

We pay monthly for all of the licenses.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

We use it for infrastructure provisioning such as providing machines and monitoring with logging and so forth.

We use the infrastructure as a service cloud, that is, we use the features as infrastructure for this. We are not using any platform services.

The licenses themselves are not costly.

We are a service provider, and every day, new customers come to us needing advanced features like platform features. For example, some of them need a managed hosting setup like Beanstalk, or some of them need microservices, like container or Kubernetes, or serverless types of things. So we are in discussions with the concerned teams at VMware in order to incorporate the platform services for next year.

There are new updates every quarter, so we need to purchase new support deployment services and some new products. We are not happy with the frequent upgrades. Because we are a government department, we find it quite difficult to accommodate the frequent changes. What we would like is for the changes to be less frequent, at least twice a year or once a year, so that we can accommodate that in our budget plans. We make budgets annually, not quarterly. I think they need to have a better roadmap for future offerings and future technologies.

I've been using vCloud Director for two years.

Every quarter or after every quarter, they release new versions and new upgrades. If we don't do the new upgrades, it causes stability issues.

We currently rely on VMware for deployment, and they portray it as a complex process that needs a lot of judges.

It's a costly product. The licenses may not be costly, but with every new development in their product, we need to purchase deployment services, and the deployment services are quite costly.

The public cloud and the hosted cloud solutions are going in parallel, and some countries have the requirement to host the data locally. Most of the organizations who don't have these compliance requirements go for the public cloud, but I would say that hiring and retaining skilled resources matters a lot. Because if you have skilled, experienced resources, then things will be easy for you, but if you can't retain the skilled resources and things are quite complex, then you will need to accept all of the company's conditions.

Overall, we are happy with the product, so I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

For vCloud we use a private cloud. In a distributed system, CapEx and OpEx are better. In storage, when you use a stand-alone system you have to pay much more than with a distributed system.

For vCloud we use a private cloud. In a distributed system, CapEx and OpEx are better. In storage, when you use a stand-alone system you have to pay much more than with a distributed system. With a storage system rather than stand-alone systems you have to pay much more than a distributed system.

In the virtualization aspect, we are happy, but if we work on the public cloud, not the private cloud.OpenStack has a lot of features. In OpenShift when you configure it you can provide 100 web service in redundancy mode. 

This is very simple in OpenShift. We are happy with vCloud in terms of the virtualization but not for redundancy and distribution.

We have been using VMware for five to six years. 

We've been using vCloud for two years. With vCloud, we have to pay more much for the license but OpenStack is almost an entirely free platform. 

We don't have any issues with stability. 

With our license, when we want to expand and connect vCloud with the billing systems you have to pay more.

It's your choice if you want to pay more for a license because the billing system is separate but you have to pay more. For example, if you have the Python team to develop the system, you can use OpenStack and you pay less than wit the vCloud system.

We don't have any issue but when we want to extend the system, we have the problem with the license and so we have to pay more. It's better to use the other solution.

We have three staff members in the network and two people on the storage side. The whole team is around 10 people.

Technical support is good but the price and the license are very expensive.

The initial setup is simple. The support for the deployment is very good. We were happy with the deployment, it is very simple and if you get team that is familiar with various solutions you can deploy very quickly.

In the older version, VMware supported NSX, but right now VMware provides NSX-T. NSX-T can connect your network, your VMware, your vCloud network to the SDN, and you can connect to other platforms. The initialization and the configuration in VMware is simple. We didn't have any issues.

I would rate vCloud a seven out of ten. 

In the next release, I would like to see better integration with VMware and the older cloud solutions like OpenStack. I think VMware is working on it.  

OpenStack works better than VMware in a distribution system. 

We have better performance in surface storage, we have better documentation. 

vCloud is a good platform for visualization. It is very handy for monitoring. VMware can integrate with all monitoring systems like vRealize, and the management monitoring is good. I'm very happy with VMware. VMware is good in management and monitoring systems.