VMware vSAN Reviews

From what I saw, you can create the SAN in a small environment, and then grow. That’s a valuable feature of VSAN and makes it cost effective.

It's cost effective because you can start small and grow as needed.

From my experience testing it, VSAN could be more stable.

We tested it for about three months.

I was not sure about its stability because we have a big SAN shop and I got the impression that it’s good for small offices and not the larger ones.

The scalability seems ok – I would give it 6/10 because in a traditional SAN you can go up to a few terabytes. However with VSAN, it seems you can only get a couple hundred terabytes, and I expected more.

We haven’t had a chance to use it for VSAN, but in general we've had pretty good support from VMware, so I think VSAN tech support will also be good.

We haven’t fully implemented, but it should be simple and straightforward.

We will implement it by ourselves without a vendor team.

We looked into Dell and Nutanix, and chose VSAN because of ease of setup.

Customer support, the actual technology, how robust or stable it is and the ease of deployment are the criteria too look for when selecting a vendor.

I would say that if you’re a medium IT organization and looking for a cost effective solution, VSAN is worthwhile; but, if you’re a bigger environment, I would go with a bigger SAN like EMC, NetApp, and IBM.

• It's very simple to use.
• It work on commoditized hardware.
• It provides centralized storage.

It's lowered our storage costs while still maintaining High Availability and with easy installation.

Expand the hardware compatibility list – it's pretty short. Definitely also the diagnostic and monitoring could be improved. That stuff is still very new.

We have been using it since it came out in March 2015.

So far so good.

Unsure – all I know is what I read, if it does what it says it does I'm very impressed.

Very good – quality support.

We have three hosts in a cluster, and it was surprisingly easy.

Try it out – that’s the best way to know whether it's right for your organization.

Scalability, and flexibility.

My conversations, now, have to do with trying to help customers on how to grow with VSAN.

It offers a lower cost of growth for a lot of our customers. They can meet immediate needs, but don’t need to spend a lot of money now. Balancing between capital budget and operational budget, instead of buying SAN to SAN, they can buy what they need now and then have operational costs after that.

If you don't have vRealize Operations, it would detract from usability of VSAN. It allows our customers to see more granularly than other storage solutions.

Never used. Last week, I got in touch with a channel partner, and he talked about different tools and different things they had implemented. Our team excited about it because there we don’t have many resources, but now we have with channel partner.

We set it up for our healthcare customer with our in-house team only.

Look outside of upfraont costs, because it’ll be equivalent to Nutanix. Its biggest value is its scalability. You can buy a little bit, and not a whole infrastructure box when you want to grow. Customers can just spin up half a dozen additional hosts quickly of they want.

I have a lot of confidence in it, but it’s a challenge to convince customers because they’re intrigued but don’t want to take the steps. All the specs and concept of having storage within servers is interesting to customers, but not ready to pull trigger. If we can sell more with Horizon, then licenses included for pricing, and must refresh hosts anyways.

We use VMware vSAN as a VDI solution.

The performance of VMware vSAN is very good.

I have been using VMware vSAN for approximately two years.

VMware vSAN is a stable solution.

The support from VMware vSAN was good. When I had to contact the support for my clients everything was as expected.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took us approximately one month to implement for one of our customers but there were some delays on our customer's side. We could have done it in a shorter timeframe.

My customers have found VMware vSAN to be a little expensive.

VMware vSAN is the most trending hypervisor that most of the customers are working with.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate VMware vSAN a ten out of ten.

We are using VMware vSAN for the transformation from the physical server to the virtual environment.

By using VMware vSAN we have limited the need to maintain multiple physical servers. Additionally, we have been able to reduce the entire cost of the IT operation and management because of the reduction of physical servers. There are fewer electricity and cooling systems needed.

The most valuable feature for our customers is vMotion. It allows them to shut down virtual machines and migrate them to others servers.

I have been using VMware vSAN for approximately six years.

The stability of the solution is very good. From customer feedback, VMware is much more stable compared to Hyper-V.

The scalability of VMware vSAN is good.

We currently have approximately 80 customers using this solution.

We plan to increase usage. Our sales team prefers this solution over other solutions.

We use online documentation and videos for support, such as YouTube. If there is a problem we cannot solve then we email the support of VMware.

We deploy many other solutions for our customers, such as Hyper-V, which some of them prefer.

The initial setup is quite simple according to our customer feedback. The time it takes for the deployment depends on many factors, such as use case and environment size.

We have a six-person technical team for maintenance.

We have received a return on investment. Our customers are happy, we do not need to employ a technician after deployment which is good. There is a decent return on investment but it also depends on the customers' use case.

The cost of the solution is high and if it could be reduced the customers would be very happy.

We have used VMware for different kinds of customers. Our target customers are SMB or SME, they normally choose VMware and their first package. We do have customers who use our own data center services, in this case, we use the VMware manage service license.

We typically propose VMware to our customers. We advise the customer to switch to virtualization. The main point is the customer would like to recover their data. If they'll use the physical server they cannot meet the requirement of fast recovery of the data. That's why we ask customers to do the server control check into the virtualization. You can save a lot of time managing the physical server and have a lower cost for the backup option. You can have a better recovery solution is the main point our customer use VMware.

I rate VMware vSAN an eight out of ten.

I work at a small company, and we have VxRail. Like Rubrik, VxRail can be upgraded brick by brick. Now we are studying considering deploying another traditional setup comprising a host and SAN Storage. VMware vSAN is a virtual SAN Storage. 

We are planning to expand the resources of our system, including CPU, RAM, and storage. Currently, we are utilizing the basic VxRail setup, which consists of only three nodes, and we're in the process of acquiring another. I'm upgrading because it's at capacity, so we have no choice but to add another node so we can expand the loads for some new applications that we need to employ under the virtual servers. Our expansion to a new data center will add some more capacity to the current setup.

In the end, we could wind up with around six nodes, SAN storage, or flash array storage. But we don't have a definite plan yet. Everything is being drafted at the moment, and we're researching some details on backup solutions and VR solutions. We also have some cloud-based and server-hosted applications from Azure and AWS. So maybe the on-premises solution could involve some VMs or a hybrid backup solution that goes back and forth between the cloud and on-premises. 

If we decide to expand, vSAN could offer us some flexibility. We are researching ways to set this up from a new data center, which is located somewhere different from the current location right now.

I would like to see better integration between the cloud and our VMware virtual environment. We only have one virtual environment, which is VMware vSAN. Right now, there is little interoperability with the cloud solution at the moment. We are currently researching to figure out if we can achieve that. 

It's possible that we'll need to acquire new infrastructure for the new data center. And for that, we need to consult some architects, whether it's a VMware architect or some AWS and Azure architects. And we could come up with a workable blueprint that to use as a guideline so we can manage our infrastructure.

I am new to this company, but I worked with different solutions at my previous company, including vSAN and the traditional VMware vSphere setup. So I've been using vSAN for two years or three years.

VMware vSAN is stable, although there's is some room for improvement. 

I've been working with VMware technical support since I had my own company. It's pretty dependable because I used to work primarily with level three infrastructure support. We are the last escalation. I am one of the contact people between the company and the VMware vendor. The final escalations would be working with the vendor itself or some VMware engineer, whether it's vSAN, vSphere, Center, or anything else within the scope of our license.

In my environment right now, we only handle a limited set of VMware products. These solutions are not perfect because we must apply patches and updates to deal with glitches and minor bugs. Byt I think vSAN will be reliable, especially if the after-sales support and engineers are excellent and could help us work seamlessly and comfortably.

Our initial vSAN setup is a backup from Rubrik being thrown up to AWS for Glacier. But in the near term, maybe we could migrate that kind of solution in a more seamless and resilient way. That's what we're considering right now.

VMware is quite expensive compared to Microsoft's Hyper-V. However, when you factor in flexibility and comparability of use, it's reasonable enough. For the high price of VMware, you get seamless operation and manageability. At the same time, I think VMware is lowering the price for its cloud-based solutions. And it's stable enough that some organizations might want to put part of their setup on the cloud and the other part on-premises. VMware's advantage is that they were already preparing for cloud solutions many years ago. 

There are several virtual solutions that I have hands-on experience with, including VMware, Hyper-V, and some open source software. I could only compare Microsoft and VMware. VMware is significantly more expensive than Microsoft, but I still prefer VMware because it's manageable and easy to set up.

As a VMware customer, it's hard to judge the value I'm getting for the price in terms of operability and manageability. Then there are other factors, such as the amount of resources used. So when we're evaluating, we're not just looking at the price. We don't want to settle for something cheaper that might cost us some headaches.

I rate VMware vSAN seven out of 10. I prefer a traditional SAN storage solution. Right now, we're only using vSAN for small solutions. At the basic level, it's good enough because it operates the same way as the traditional setup. It's suitable for companies that are starting and might expand in the near future. For those use cases, vSAN is a great choice compared to Hyper-V. It's much easier to maintain. However, I haven't deployed vSAN for a larger configuration.

We primarily use the solution for 95% of our hyper-converged infrastructure deployments.

The solution is very stable.

The installation is very easy. The deployment is fast and only takes, at a maximum, 2 days.

The scaling could be a bit better.

The monitoring capabilities could be improved. It would be ideal if clients didn't need to monitor the solution on a daily basis.

I've been using the solution for about five years at this point. It's been a while. 

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance has been good.

We do have plans to continue to work with the solution. However, we do not use the solution ourselves. We are integrators. Deployments and their sizes depend on the clients.

We have about 60 to 100 clients that use the solution.

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

It took us about two days to deploy the product.

We had about five people who handled the deployment.

We did not need the help of a consultant or integrator. We are integrators ourselves. We were able to handle everything in-house with our own team.

I can't speak to the licensing arrangements or specific costs of the product.

We are integrators and a partner to the vendor.

We are working with the latest version of the solution at this time.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Our clients are pretty happy with it overall.

I'd recommend it to other users and companies. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for performance storage and management, we are a training center. I'm the information and communication technology trainer and we have a  partnership with VMware vSan. 

The solution allows our technicians to deploy multiple lab environments for different classes at any time, without requiring any manual installation.

This solution has provided us with good performance, something we were looking for as well as integration with deployment tools. One of our main aims is to be able to deploy lab environments in an automated fashion and the product enables us to do that, providing more agility in regards to a virtual machine. We can respond to different needs, but every virtual machine will use the same storage.

I'd like to see improvement in the troubleshooting tools, specifically the troubleshooting mechanism. We like the product, but once in a while there are problems that require us to reboot the host to fix things, and that creates an impact on production. 

For additional features, I'd like to see a better monitoring tool. 

I've been using this solution for 14 years. 

It's pretty stable most of the time, but you need to make sure your hardware is supported and is compatible.

Scalability of the solution is easy, you simply have a new host and provide a few contributions and then compute. We only have a few people using this product. 

We don't use the technical support, we troubleshoot problems ourselves.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Make sure your hardware is up to date and make sure you test beforehand. It's a good idea to try and combine the solution with some third party products, such as products for automation.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.