VMware vSphere Reviews

We use VMware vSphere for our windows server and other virtual machines.

No need to upgrade the hardware for individual machines, easily to assign more resources to virtual machines when desired.

I like that it's like a distributed resource scheduler, the workload can be balanced automatically. Also you can use vMotion as well to manually move the virtual machines around different physical hosts. This makes it easier when it comes to redundancy.

The initial setup could be better. Follow the instruction you can set it up, but it's not very straightforward, and you need some storage and network knowledge to get the better understanding.

I have been using VMware vSphere for over ten years.

It's stable. These have patches regularly, and we apply the critical patch.

Scalability is fine. We don't have too many virtual machines because we're moving to the cloud slowly. That's why we don't have an issue with that.

I think VMware support is excellent. They have the highest one, and I'll rate them nine out of ten. I'm still satisfied with their support.

The initial setup is a little complex because of the infrastructure. It's not related to just the one physical server, you need design the storage and networks. There are three different areas.

For my friend with stock in virtualization, I think maybe they can try the Cloud. That may be easier, and they don't need to stay on-premises.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give VMware vSphere a nine.

We are using this solution to build the AD database for the server.

This solution has been very helpful to our organization. For example, if we need to run 10 servers there is a high cost attached if we buy the physical server, but if we use this solution we can buy a very large server then control everything. The most valuable feature has been the ability to utilize the vMotion when we have a problem. It has been invaluable for us when we had a problem with a broken host that we were able to redirect our traffic to a different host to keep the business operational.

I have found the solution to be flexible, and the vCenter and vMotion useful. When we have a server that is down we can use the vMotion to use another host. Additionally, the backup feature and graphics are very good. The documentations are clear and easy to understand.

There was a time we lost the password for the ESXi and we had to do a hardware reset. At this point, we had to fill up the ESXi from the bottom up. I am not sure if there was another solution to this problem but it took a long time. We were told it would only be a few hours to resolve but in fact, it took one day. Having to explain this downtime to management was not the best experience.

In an upcoming release, there could be a better ability to manage and control the synchronization of the power in the vSphere.

I have been using the solution for approximately five years.

The solution is very stable. 

The scalability is good for everything we have been using the solution for. We have three IT users using this solution, if we upgrade our hardware we might increase usage.

The technical support agents are not clear about the issues that are being discussed. They cannot address the problem or estimate the time correctly. In one particular issue, we needed to raise our ticket to the management level because they told us it would take two hours to be operational but the downtime was one day and one night. They should have first checked the vSphere technical aspects.

The installation is very easy. It was not complicated at all.

This solution has kept our business operating and has saved us money.

There is an annual cost for the use of this solution. 

The price is a little high in developing countries. If they were able to reduce the price they would receive more customers now and even more in the future.

I rate VMware vSphere an eight out of ten.

Currently, our whole infrastructure stack is residing on the VMware hypervisor. Everything we use is running on VMware. We have multi-site vCenter data centers. We have four sites, but they are two separate pairs of sites that provide redundancy. We will shortly also use VMware Site Recovery Manager for the two to four hours disaster recovery strategy. 

We are on version 6.5 or 6.7, and we are moving to version 7.0 shortly.

It is a very stable solution. It performs well for our requirements. It has been running for a long time, so we are very knowledgeable about this solution.

It is a very well-supported solution, and it is very flexible. The expansion of its functionality is dynamic.

Its cost needs to be improved. It is very expensive as compared to other solutions.

I have been around VMware and vSphere for the last ten years.

In terms of stability, it is very well-established and very stable. For any problems or issues that we've encountered in the past, their support was quite dynamic. We've had very good success in resolving any issues or problems. None of these issues or problems had a direct impact to live services. They have built it in a way so that it provides redundancy and flexibility. It ensures that your production environments remain available at all times, even in the case of problems or issues that could be encountered. I would give it an A for stability. 

It is easily scalable, and it can be scaled without any impact on the availability of the production environment.

Their support is very good. I would give them good grades. For any problems or issues that we've encountered in the past, their support was quite dynamic. We've had very good success in resolving any issues or problems. Because there are many different products in the stack, you need to ensure that you reach the right person for the product you're looking at, but it is always fairly simple and easy to reach the right person.

The learning curve to actually get used to the product and know the product properly is fairly steep. I have been working with this solution for the last ten years, so it is not a new solution for me. I couldn't speak to today's onboarding process because I haven't onboarded in the last year. It has been many years.

It is very expensive as compared to other competitive hypervisor solutions in the market today. Its competitors are actually more aggressive. Even though most of them are less established solutions, they have started to catch up in functionality and capacity, and their pricing is extremely aggressive.

If someone is starting new with VMware, it is important that you either onboard someone who has experience with it or you ramp up the knowledge of your IT operations staff. It is far-reaching and complex and requires a good understanding to manage it properly. If you don't have a good understanding at the beginning, you could find yourself in situations where you're not getting the actual return on the solution because you're not managing it properly. The knowledge gap at the beginning has to be covered quite thoroughly.

I would rate VMware vSphere an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for management. It offers easier control at multiple branches.

The product is stable.

The flexibility of the solution is very good.

The product is very easy to use. 

The product offers a very nice single dashboard for complete management.

The solution is very straightforward to implement.

We found the scalability to be very good.

The solution doesn't seem to be missing any features currently.

It would be ideal if the integration capabilities were a bit more robust.

Technical support could be faster in terms of response times.

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

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance.

The scalability is very good. We haven't seen any issues with expanding it if we need to.

There are about 15 to 20 users on the solution at this time.

While we don't have current plans to increase usage, if the business grows, we likely will.

The technical support is quite good. They are helpful and knowledgeable. That said, their response times need to be better. We would like them to respond faster to queries. 

Other than that, we are satisfied with their level of service.

The product is not overly complex to set up. It's very simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the implementation.

We have an admin team that can handle any maintenance required.

We are looking for opportunities with Nutanix. We are looking at it now.

That said, we did not evaluate any other products before choosing this solution. However, many years back, we did look into Citrix.

We are using the latest version of the solution at this point. I cannot speak to the exact version number off-hand.

We are not integrating the solution at this time.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I would recommend the solution to other companies.

VMware vSphere gives us a complete landscape to manage the infrastructure in one view. With the REDOPS automation in place, it is easy for us to manage our VMs on top of it. 

Also, the automated builds are being done through it, and we don't have to manually do it anymore. All of my AIS platforms are completely automated now with the VM suite.

It could be more composable. At present, a fluid pool is not available to us, and it would be great to have the flexibility.

I've been working with VMware vSphere for more than eight years.

Technical support has been good. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, I would rate technical support at 4.5.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The price is reasonable.

VMware vSphere helps with large scale deployments and maintenance. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at nine.

It's used as a private cloud, and currently, we operate the original enterprise infrastructure. For VMware, a majority of the workload is posted on VMware, and it's posted on the HCI solution.

Its dynamic resource scheduling and its fault tolerance capabilities are two features that I've found to be valuable. I also like that VMware vSphere is stable, scalable, and easy to install.

I would like to see improvements in simplifying automation, cloud native deployment, administration, and fault resolution.

I've been using VMware vSphere since 2008.

My impression is that it's a very stable solution.

I believe that VMware vSphere is scalable.

The customer service and technical support were fine.

We used Hyper-V, which is a Microsoft product.

It was easy to install. We performed a complete deployment because it was a full MCI, so it required some architecture. I believe it took about a month.

I used consultants for the implementation process because it was a refresh project.

I currently use the yearly licensing option, and I think that the pricing is fine for this solution.

I would rate this solution at 9, on a scale from one to ten. 

We mainly use this solution to create hosts and convert them to virtual machines. We convert our physical assets into virtualized assets. We need to convert ESXi hosts into VMs.

Our entire operating team has access to vSphere. They can log into vCenter — vSphere's dashboard. We have multiple IDs and roles created. In total, we have more than 600 users. Out of our 600 users, we have around 50 admin users who can administer the entire map. 

We definitely plan to continue using this solution.

All of the features are great. It affords us different views of the VMs created by vSphere so we can control them better. It provides us with a single view into VMs as an asset. We create thousands and thousands of VMs using vSphere.

We have created more than 6,000 VMs. With this solution, through a single pane, we can see inside the vCenter. We can see our VMs that are running on-premises, the data center, and the ones that are in the Cloud.

There is some room for improvement but if we're not satisfied converting all of our physical assets into virtualized ones, since we have a scope for other technologies, we can always go for containerization.

There are some challenges around ESXi hosts — converting them into VMs. Also, it could definitely be more secure, overall.

It would be nice if other users could see or accept the VMs that we create — this has to do with the cluster.

The cluster should be able to be viewed by multiple sets of users apart from the operating team. If a developer also wants to have access to the cluster, it's complicated. Role-based access should be available to make this easier.

I have been using VMware vSphere for more than 10 years.

It's quite stable. I haven't experienced any issues as such. We have support available from an extended team of VMware professionals. It's aligned to the GTI, global technology infrastructure. VMware is a big area in our organization.

It's quite scalable. You can keep scaling up the number of VMs you want to create. As I mentioned, we create thousands of VMs, so yes, we can scale easily. That's a capability I would look at from a business goal perspective. Any business leader will want to scale up their hypervisor. vSphere is pretty much the hypervisor. 

I am satisfied with the support. There's a separate team for maintenance and a separate team for support. Whatever upgrades need to be done, it is all taken care of by the maintenance teams.

There are two ways of installing it, depending on your deployment topology. Overall, it's quite fast and easy to install. It only takes a couple of days to install it.

An extended team of VMware professionals helped us with the installation, but we mostly did it ourselves. It was onboarded into our organization in 2009 — the very first version. You could say that we're one of the earliest adopters.

The licensing has become cheaper over time. As there are multiple offerings, it depends on how you are leveraging.

We evaluated Edge containerization a while back, but we didn't notice any tools that would help us grow, so we decided to stick with VMware vSphere.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. It's better than Microsoft Hyper-V. Hyper-V has some problems. VMware vSphere is the industry leader by far when it comes to the hypervisor sector.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

Server Virtualization is the most important feature because that helps me to utilize 100% capacity of my physical server or box. Its redundancy, uptime, or high-availability is also valuable.

Storage-sharing is also valuable. In vSAN, I can utilize the maximum storage. In the physical boxes, if you don't require storage, it lies idle, but with VMware or any kind of virtualization, you can utilize the full storage.

Its price could be better. It is expensive, and its price is a big concern.

I have been working with vSphere for the last ten years.

It is stable. I started my virtualization career with VMware 3.0 or 3.5. At that time, it was volatile, but now it is quite sturdy. At that time, it was working with Exchange 2003. When I installed it on VMware, I found that Exchange was giving problems and servers were hanging, but nowadays, servers are quite stable. Virtualization is quite good nowadays, and that is the future. All cloud solutions are good nowadays.

It is scalable. I have around 200-plus servers with me.

Their technical support is good. I am happy with that. When I call my VMware team members for any issue, they usually guide me. I am getting good technical support. When I open a high-priority ticket, and I want the support within 10 minutes or 15 minutes, I call my local team member or my Account Manager, and they arrange it for me. I find them very good. I don't find any issue with VMware.

Their training is also good. People, who are not a part of an organization and want to get some training, can connect to their virtual labs. They are doing pretty well. 

I didn't work on something similar before vSphere. After vSphere, I tried to work on Microsoft Virtualization, which is also quite good, but I did not get much exposure to that. My organization prefers to work on VMware. In our sister concern, we're working on Microsoft, but we are planning to move them to VMware vSphere because I want to establish my DR on the other side. We had VMware DRS hosted at one of the service providers, and then we moved to Microsoft Azure, but now we're planning to move back to on-premise.

Its price is quite high. VMware licensing is quite costly. You have to pay for the CPU and Threads, but if you want good service, you have to pay the price. Its cost is not more than 1 million for us.

If you want 100% utilization of your hardware, you should definitely use it. There is also network virtualization and storage virtualization, but it would be quite cheaper if you go for physical storage.

If you are a medium to large organization, the hybrid environment is also there. If you are a small organization, you should go for the cloud because if your utilization is not much, it is always recommended to go for the cloud. Otherwise, go for VMware virtualization. It is 100% useful for an organization.

VMware is bringing a lot of features. They are quite ahead in terms of features. They have containerization, monitoring, operational manager, and all required features. vSAN and storage utilization are also there. They are bundling everything. Their Research and Development is very good. 

I would rate VMware vSphere a nine out of ten.