VMware NSX Reviews

We host citizen-centric portals. They are web portals where citizens can enter and fetch data. For example, we have tax-related portals, health-related portals, and education-related portals. These are social welfare portals, and for that, we use AWS services.

NSX helps us by making IT management and operations more efficient. When VMs spin off from the DC to the DR site, all required settings on the network level are handled automatically.

The most valuable feature of NSX is the ease of configuration. It handles automatic configuration of IP addresses and network settings during VM migrations between data centers.

The ticket support response time from VMware could be improved. Often, callbacks are delayed, which can be problematic if the servers are in production.

We have been using NSX for almost one year.

NSX is stable and reliable. I would rate its stability between eight or nine out of ten.

NSX is quite scalable. I would rate its scalability as eight out of ten.

The customer support from VMware could be more responsive, as sometimes callbacks are delayed, causing delays in addressing critical issues.

Positive

We did not switch from another solution to NSX. We have been using VMware products, including vSphere, for many years.

The initial setup of NSX was complex, but with the help of an experienced vendor and support from VMware, we managed to configure it successfully in a short time.

We had an experienced vendor help with the implementation and received good support from VMware during the setup.

VMware has moved to a bundled pricing model, which means we are sometimes forced to pay for features we don’t use. This has increased our overall costs.

We evaluated Azure and other solutions, but we preferred AWS.

I recommend NSX because it simplifies IT operations and management, especially for data center network configurations.

We use the solution to establish a connection between our two sites using the same IPs. This is our primary use case.

Segmentation, specifically micro-segmentation, and also for its extended service between sites to keep the same IP address on all sites are valuable features of the solution for our company.

The solution could benefit from improvements in its pricing and scalability.

I have been using VMware NSX for two years. Also, I am using VMware NSX-T 1.0

It is a stable solution. Our company is migrating from VMware NSX-T 1.0 to VMware NSX-T 3.0.

In terms of scalability, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. Currently, VMware NSX is being used extensively in my company by approximately 1,000 end-users.

When our company contacts VMware's technical support, we open a ticket for our support request. In the past, we escalated issues to VMware support and raised tickets to receive resolutions.

The solution's initial setup process was easy.

The implementation process for the solution was executed with the assistance of our organization's in-house team.

Regarding the deployment process, we begin with the manager and the product. Next, we deploy the controller and proceed with the requirements of UA6. Subsequently, we configure the DLR, ULS, or UDL.

I don't look over the pricing and licensing of the solution.

Before our company decided to go with VMware NSX, we evaluated VMware vRA and VMware vRO.

The solution is highly recommended for those with similar use cases as our company, given its features and the exceptional support it offers. The solution's prompt and responsive support team makes it a reliable option. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

VMware NSX helps create and operate on-demand networks. The solution is dynamic and flexible. Our company's principal use case for the product is to provide a network for private projects. VMware NSX is also used to link virtual networks with legal networks and develop a single environment that permits comprehending virtual and physical tasks. 

Firewall security is one of VMware NSX's vital features. Using the tags and the solution's security policy is incredibly simple. For instance, I can create a sketch on paper and redesign it with the tags present on the network segment using VMware NSX. 

A basic load balancer feature was present in a previous version, but the latest version only has an advanced load balancer. The vendor should integrate a basic load balancer in future versions. The advanced load balancer is mostly suitable for system integrators, but it is not usable for our company dimensions. 

I have been using VMware NSX for three years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. There are about a few hundred end-users of the solution in our organization. 

Our organization's virtual environments consist of virtual machines and systems within the network segments of VMware NSX, and every lab has professors, researchers, and students. 

Before Broadcom acquired VMware NSX, I would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. But presently, I wouldn't rate it so high because our company has difficulty reaching customer support. Whenever I write an email to the technical manager of the solution, I often don't receive a response. 

Overall, the setup process of VMware NSX was easy, but due to the unfamiliarity, the beginning of the process was a steep climb for our organization's team. In our company, we majorly utilize the on-prem deployment model but temporarily we also used the solution in the cloud because we needed the virtual labs and sometimes we needed to use VMware NSX on Azure. 

As a public administrator in Italy, our company signs a contract with an organization connected to numerous universities. This aforementioned organization creates the tender with VMware. I would rate the pricing of VMware NSX as seven out of ten. 

The micro-segmentation function of VMware NSX is wonderful because this feature allows for the best control of every single entrance point of data packets. I would overall rate VMware NSX a nine out of ten. I would recommend others to use the solution. 

It's what we use the CIS Benchmarks for. It's for employing hardening rules and keeping them up to date when things happen on our systems. So it's really configurations and stuff that harden and report back. 

Now, some of the hardening we have in our configuration, so there's some overlap there, but actually running the benchmarks and enforcing the benchmarks as security rules, they don't have much built for that. They got nothing for AIX, and Linux is not where the CIS benchmarks are. So they're way behind on partnering.

We had proof of concept at one point before the VMware purchase of SaltStack. And it had some merit, but the reality was it was under-implemented. And the merits were all in Linux. It was a good first stab at it, but it didn't have enough to implement in our environment, and then AIX kind of washed it right out, and they made a statement that they weren't going to support it. So it's been ruled out for us for a number of months.

SecOps does not work for us. Their SecOps is so infant, and it doesn't support AIX that we just can't use it.

Unusable is unusable. So if someone gives it to me for free. I can't use it. The only good thing is they've thought about it, but to me, they've underwritten it and haven't given it the attention to be a real product.

We use CIS (Center for Internet Security) Benchmark. It's actually a membership-type thing. And they have hardening rules and benchmarks, and it's a very common standard. 

They have products out there that Syscat is an older one, and they have a newer one, which I can't remember the name of. But it runs on your system, and they have benchmarks in there, and it scores your system based on hardening. 

We maintain a matrix of our hardened systems on a daily basis and know whether that score changed or not and alert if it does change. And then, in our environment, we have a whole lot of other tools out there.  

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a three out of ten, where one is a complex process, and ten is a difficult setup process.

This solution is really unusable from my perspective at this point. Overall, I would rate the solution a one of ten. 

We use so little of Red Hat Satellite. We use it for patching only. And I liked it better when it was the spacewalk equivalent, the informant thing. They're putting too much effort into the Virtu utilization and not enough into the day-to-day operations, for patching and stuff. Patching is a plugin as opposed to, like, the main product. Which is what we use it for.

So we're actually writing our own at this point because it's so heavy right now. The old satellite was good. Not great, but good. This one is just way too much overhead and focused on stuff we don't use.

Our clients are moving from traditional to virtual infrastructure, so we sold them vSphere, vSAM, and NSX to manage all the workloads inside VMware. All the VMs work just like traditional infrastructure inside an appliance.

NSX has excellent security features like virtual firewalls. I also like the micro-segmentation features, which are useful for the virtual machines inside the servers.

I started working with Nutanix NSX last year. 

I rate NSX eight out of 10 for stability. 

NSX is easy to scale. 

We sell Nutanix, Dell EMC, HPE, and IBM. Right now, I'm working with IBM Storage and Power Servers. We have Pure Systems, too, but I'm still new. It's my first week at the company, so I'm still studying other vendors that I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm not implementing. I am selling the solution. You can use it on-prem or in the cloud. If you are using SRM, including NSX in your workloads makes things easier. You can easily move everything, including the network security and several layers inside the appliance, to the cloud or any other site.

VMware has a subscription and perpetual license. In the New Year, they're changing many things about the licensing model. Previously, NSX was licensed according to the number of sockets inside the appliance, so we bought VMware licenses based on that. However, that may have changed this year. We are still contacting the vendors to understand the new licensing strategy.

I rate VMware NSX nine out of 10. I recommend it.

VMware NSX is used for server virtual machines.

The most valuable feature of VMware NSX is the ease of use and its user friendly. For example, it is simple to change the subnet masks.

The solution could improve by having a more streamlined setup.

I rate VMware NSX for approximately one year.

The solution is highly stable.

We have approximately 2,000 users using this solution.

VMware NSX scales well.

I have rarely used the support of the solution.

I rate the support from VMware NSX an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have not used a similar solution to VMware NSX.

The installation process for VMware NSX can be intricate. We obtained the executable file for the specific server we intended to install VMware NSX and then proceeded to configure it. This involved ensuring that the IP and ID matched the installation, as well as completing other necessary details such as setting up the gateways.

We are using the free version of the solution.

We have 10 analysts and administrators that do the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate VMware NSX a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for our DMC firewall to micro-segment the networks for the CRUD matrix.

The most valuable feature is the integration with the firewall.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have around 4,000 people using the solution.

The technical support is sometimes delayed but they always resolve our issues.

Positive

The implementation was completed by a vendor.

The cost of the solution is a bit high.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

The maintenance is done by our vendor.

The solution is great and I recommend it.

The micro-segmentation and the ability to create policy rules are valuable.

There's generally quite a lack of specialists in this space. One of the challenges as a reseller is that I need technical people to go and offer in-depth conversations about the products. We would engage someone to do that, or we would look for some engineering resources to be able to do the implementation. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of those. There is a massive skill shortage.

It's a good product, but the way that it has got so many multiple levels that need to be purchased makes it expensive and cumbersome. They seem to value shareholders more than customers, but most corporations seem to do that anyway.

I don't use the product. I sell the product. I've been with VMware for multiple years. It has been about three years or so.

It's stable. None of my customers have complained about it from a stability point of view. They complained about its cost a lot, but people are quite happy that it's a stable product.

There don't seem to be any issues with scalability. I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of scalability.

Most of our clients are small to medium enterprises.

We are just reselling the product. I've seen demos and things like that. It seems very straightforward. 

There could be some challenges around the implementation time, and you need to know what you're doing. There were some challenges from one of our customers. It had to do with the migration of VTT that wasn't made clear to him, so he complained about that, but it's not my experience. Some of the end-users in that space may have a feeling that they're not being informed sufficiently of product changes in a timely manner. 

Our customers have definitely complained about its cost. It's expensive. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of pricing where ten represents a high price. There are other products out there that are equally expensive.

I'd definitely recommend doing a proof of concept. Do a trial deployment so that you can understand the requirements and you can understand how the rules are created. So, definitely, try before you buy should be there.

I'd rate it an eight out of ten.