VMware vSAN Reviews

The user-friendliness could be better. 

The solution is quite pricey in comparison with other products, such as HP or Cisco. 

While I like the replication and compression features, there is a problem with them running too slowly. This is not of benefit to the customers, but it is important when it comes to migrating. 

I've been using VMware vSAN for around two years.

The solution is stable. 

It is difficult for me to comment on the technical support, as we are not the customer or user. 

The complexity of the initial setup varies with the customer. 

In comparison with other solutions, such as HP or Cisco, I find the solution to be quite pricey.

HP and Cisco have lower priced solutions than VMware vSAN, which I find to be quite pricey. 

I think I am satisfied with the product. I would say it is so so. 

I rate VMware vSAN as a seven out of ten. 

vMotion and the Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) load-balancing resources are the most valuable features.

We can manage capacity and performance in linear fashion.

We get better performance with a better cost efficiency.

The management of vSAN (dashboard, alerts, monitoring) has a significant amount of growth potential.

No issues encountered.

The stability is dependent on how we scale and stabilize I/O across the host(s). We have encountered issues, but have worked through them.

There are no issues because it is linear.

Prior to VSAN, we used SAN Storage, and we switched because we needed a more cost-effective solution for our cloud environment, coupled with easy scalability. Currently, SAN Storage has risks and bottlenecks, due to having only two storage processors which are not enough to handle our needs.

It was straightforward.

We implemented in-house.

• NetApp
• Nutanix

Make sure you size correctly when you do the initial implementation.

VMware vSAN is software-defined storage. I think that says it all. You don't have to buy additional external storage, and you can manage all the storage entities from the console. That's very important to our customers.

vSAN is very integrated.

Ease of administration is one area where vSAN could be improved. 

We've been using vSAN for probably four to five years.

For our purposes, vSAN's stability is okay.

vSAN is scalable.

As far as I know, any VMware tickets that we've escalated have been handled professionally. and their support team is very skilled.

It's straightforward. Because we are deploying it from the VxRail global setup, there is no dedicated vSAN setup that we are providing. It's all integrated into the VxRail setup. However, installing vSAN itself can be quite complex if you're doing it from scratch.

I rate vSAN eight out of 10. I would recommend it to others. 

We use it for VDI.

It's supposed to provide low-cost for storage arrays to do VDI. We're on the fence with it. We're still looking at other solutions. We're not sold on it.

It has provided some value when it's working. Instead of hitting our production SAN array, it has its own array, storage-wise. It keeps workload off production.

It could be more robust. The latency is also an issue for us, and the reliability. I would like it to be faster and a little more flexible.

On a scale of one to ten I would give the stability a six.

Scalability should be pretty good, but we're not getting the performance we want out of it right now, so we're not going to scale it unless something changes.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

We have seen value in it but, since it's not performing the way we think it should. We're probably not going to move forward with it.

We went with it because of the cost. It's definitely cheaper than buying a storage array.

The ability to scale out incrementally instead of doing a big five year capital expense purchase that hurts the budget. Vith vSAN, you buy x86 servers and you're done, and you can scale up.

The cost. VSAN allows us to do storage cheaper and better than before.

Deduplication feature is needed, and I'm thinking maybe it needs a lot of nodes to store all redundant data. This will be addressed in their next beta version.

Assuming we get policies set up where they need to be, it's a stable technology. It's distributed architecture is slick, and will hold up.

First and foremost, it offers a different way to scale, it’s smaller and easier to digest in smaller bites. As older ESXi hosts are phased out, you can replace with VSAN and add more nodes. Very incremental approach.

I've never had to use it.

It feels forward thinking and I can see this as big game changer, which is exciting, but it's only one-and-a-half-years old -- a toddler. There are some minor things wrong, but it's potential value could far overshadow it curent weaknesses, Currently we don’t have NSX, and that could be a pivotal thing, but we don’t have that licensing yet.

I have found that the multi-homing feature is very valuable in VMware vSAN. It is an easy-to-use solution.

I have used the VMware Replication but I can't get it to work properly. The process should be simplified.

I have been using VMware vSAN for a couple of years.

VMware vSAN is stable. 

I have not contacted support.

The Initially setup is easy. We have only three or four hosts. However, I might need to use some more services. A larger environment requires more hosts.

I have been told that if I used VxRail it would be cheaper than the system we are using now with buying the products separately. The solution is expensive overall.

In my company have some new consultant technicians who have more experience in the bigger setups. They suggest that I look at the VxRail solution.

We have been evaluating VMware Horizon and we are thinking about using it.

I rate VMware vSAN an eight out of ten.