VMware vSphere Reviews

The primary use case for vSphere is that it can be used to deploy space applications to consolidate environments. You can be in production or in a data center, and you want each application to perform or to run only on a particular server. To create that consolidation and that separation of services, you could deploy vSphere.

Nowadays, servers are very robust. You can have a server of 18 cores and a server of 75 terabytes or 100 terabytes. That's a huge investment for a company, and you cannot just deploy a single application. So, with vSphere it will permit you to deploy the hypervessel on that server and later on add servers little by little that can meet your needs.

In terms of the usability, it's user-friendly; VMware vSphere is much simpler as compared to Oracle. Even a French-speaking citizen or foreigner can easily implement it.

It's much more stable than other products. It is scalable and easy to implement as well.

It would be good if VMware vSphere could permit hard partitioning. If a company wants to purchase very expensive applications such as Oracle E-Business Suite or Oracle Fusion and they have vSphere technology implemented in their data center, it will cost them a lot because it has a very heavy, strong, or robust server that has strong processing capacity. The license will not cost the license of vSphere, the virtual server created by vSphere. The license will be the license for the whole server, so it creates a lot of challenges.

If it's possible for virtual hard partitioning to be implemented so that those who are using very sophisticated applications like E-Business Suite and other applications that require licensing on a processor, a virtual processor, could benefit from it, then it would be great. That is, integration with more expensive platforms is needed.

It would be nice to pay once for an unlimited license. If you decide to quit later on, you could pay the support charges.

I've been using VMware vSphere for about two years.

It's much more stable than other products.

It's very scalable because you can create a cluster. You can add a cluster and add another server in the nodes or in the cluster which you have created.

It's user-friendly, and it's really easy for a beginner to install. Now, there are appliances that you can deploy directly. So, I think it's very easy compared to that of others in the market. I have deployed it in large environments and even a test environment.

We implemented it ourselves.

I think the licensing cost depends on the number of users.

VMware vSphere is user-friendly and easy to implement, so I will recommend it. I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Our clients have a lot that they want to be deployed in an environment. What they normally do is buy two or three boxes, and then it's virtualized. We make the VM sit on those boxes. Within three boxes, they can have at least ten or 20 servers working for them. They have less power, less racking space, less cabling, and all that. That's how we use VMware.

VMware vSphere is a stable platform. We never had any issues with VMware vSphere. Once you deploy it with a stable version of the server or the hardware, there's no issue at all. 

A little automation would help. VMs normally use CPU resources. Let's say that a particular host or a server has ten VMs. Out of that, five VMs are performing, and the others aren't performing at the best level. It would help if VMware automatically learned that, and the suit itself came down to that level. When you normally give a VM four CPUs and the entire GB memory, then memory and the CPU belong to that VM.

But let's say that the VM is not using four CPUs. It's just using two CPUs. Then automatically at the VM level and without the client or the customer knowing, it should just use it at the backend. It would be better this way instead of telling the customer that they are going to reduce it. For them, it's always four CPUs, but at the backend, it's always working with two CPUs or something like that. That would have been a cool feature.

I know VMWare has this Operations Manager. I know that it comes at a price because VMWare normally wants to charge for everything in the software. But I'm not seeing all the features of the Operations Manager. I only see a few features. If all the features can be included in one package, that would be good.

VMware vSphere is a stable platform.

VMware vSphere is a scalable platform.

Technical support is fantastic.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes a normal amount of time to install the operating system.

Normally our clients go for a one-time cost because that's easier for them. They don't want to go for recurring costs. But some clients prefer to go for recurring costs. It depends on the client and doesn't depend on us.

Once you pay for the standard license, that's it unless you want another feature to be activated. That's a different thing.

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

The primary use cases for the solution are all of our production and DTQ. 

We're not using any of the built-in security features.

We run 3,000 VMs. It works for what we need it to do. All of our retail point-of-sale stuff, the back-end for that, is on VMware. We're retail, so everything is run in virtual.

The vSphere Client always feels slow, and/or like it doesn't keep up with what I'm trying to do. So I usually use the thick client most of the time.

I'm looking forward to some of the new features on 6.7 where you can record your actions in the Client and then it will spit out all the code. So if you want a script of what you just did, it gives you all the code for that. That's probably the one thing I'm looking forward to the most in the 6.7.

I feel that it's stable. We haven't had any downtime because of the VMware.

It's scalable.

Technical support is helpful. I get through to the right people and they are able to give me the support I need.

It's the only virtual solution I've ever used.

Accessibility and the ease of use is unparalleled. The clustering and ability to move virtual machines around on the fly has been amazing.

We’ve been able to consolidate our footprint and decreased the number of hardware hosts we were running.

I think everything we’re looking at should be addressed in 6. I don’t like the web client, I’m sure it’s fine, but I believe 6.0 addresses that.

We just switched, but so far it’s been very stable.

Not yet, we just switched over.

I submitted a ticket about four weeks ago, and the guy called me on a Saturday at midnight. It’s been fairly hard to get hold of somebody, and when they get ahold of you, I understood about three of every five words they said. I wished it was better.

We were just running Hyper-V, and the size of our team required more. The need to consolidate our servers, as VMware is a lot better with resource management, we didn’t want a large server cluster, so VMware was needed in order to maintain it well with a smaller staff.

Peer reviews actually a huge point in us switching over from Hyper-V. It’s such an old product that it was hard to find any support for it online, and the change we’ve seen in vSphere is night and day. There’s so many peer resources available that it’s been easy to transition for us.

It's straightforward, and the documentation is nice. It's also got a good footprint on the web, that makes it easy to look for other users for knowledge and advice.

I always look at the price before purchasing technology.

Nope, it was the best from what we heard.

I would say from a 4 of Hyper-V, I would easily give this a 7 or 8, as the support definitely improved drastically.

When selecting a vendor, do your research and develop relationships. If you know the product and can get in contact with POCs, we want to see the product before we buy it.

Virtualization is the most valuable feature. Without it, working in the cloud and IT life as we know it is not possible.

• Fast server provisioning
• Saves energy
• It's green
• Improves disaster recovery

I have configured our environment in a way by which it will ease the process of provisioning the VMs by using automation workflows within the VMware environment.

Disaster recovery is very much helpful for any business where you require a maximum uptime or minimal downtime. We have two environments configured, hosted in two different locations, so if we encounter a disaster at one site, the network infrastructure will switch to the other site with minimal downtime (maximum 15 minutes).

I've used it for over three years.

There were challenges with the compatibility, design and architecture. If these three things are perfect on your table, then you will not face any issues while deploying anything. In our scenario, we encountered some issues with compatibility.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

7/10.

8/10.

I was using Citrix. vSphere is far better than Citrix, in my opinion. There was a time that when you wanted to deploy a VDI environment, there would be no reason not to choose XenServers. But now, VMware vSphere is providing not just the VDI platform, but also the complete virtualization infrastructure with very good features.

It is always straightforward if you follow the documentation.

I tried it myself in-house in my lab environment.

I have learned a lot and am still learning.

It's worthwhile investing as VMware is a leader in the virtualization market.

• Citrix
• Hyper-V

Go ahead and implement it as you will enjoy using it.

A typical use case for vSphere would be general virtualization, primarily, where we're deploying either Linux or Windows-based workloads. We do have a lot of design-ready nodes we use for some of our clients. We also use Tanzu, from an application development container, microservices type of solution as well. 

VMware vSphere is replete with about a gazillion different features. In the context of vCenter, everything has been amalgamated into a single appliance. It's much more simplified at deployment. Because of that, immediately I would say the most useful feature is the Lifecycle Manager, VLCM, that is now available. So, what used to be the VMware of Data Manager has now changed to the Lifecycle Manager. Those changes are really, really useful.

I'm a big fan of vSphere; I have used it since the days of 3.5, all the way up to now. When you deploy it as a complete stack, from vSphere to vCenter to the vRealize Operations, Orchestrator, all the way up, you're into your NSX login site, the entire cloud stack. By the time you're done, you begin to feel, "do you really need so many different pieces that you need to connect? Could it not just be a single, unified product?" I'm not saying the integration is difficult. It is seamless. But it gets to you at a point. There are times where you really begin to think, "I got this." Not, " it should be much easier than this."

I can't think of anybody on the planet who would actually have issues with vSphere. vSphere is as stable as the word stable gets. When you do the entire stack scenario unless you're doing something like VMware Cloud Foundation on VxRail, wherein it becomes a much more seamless solution where you are using discrete hardware, you're creating the entire cloud platform. It gets a little tedious doing all those workflows at times.

From a management center, particularly referring to the private cloud stack, I would prefer for it to be a lot more seamless. There are competitors, Cloud Management Platform or Morpheus, for example. It's a product you deploy and you're good to go. With this, there are so many different pieces to connect. It grows on you.

I've been using VMware for a long time. As as a DC architect, I use it day in and day out.

If you're looking for any hypervisor, vSphere is not a gold standard, vSphere is the gold standard. There's no single other option. When it comes down to it, if I can afford it, vSphere is the only one that I'm going with.

There have been cases with vSphere itself, but the fact is that VMware support is great. 

I have had clients who have faced issues in the context of hyperconverged infrastructure. A problem in the networks assumes a lot more significance in the context of HCI, and VMware support is awesome.

I have no complaints about the setup. The integration is seamless. When you put together all the various pieces, you build an entire private cloud stack. At that stage, once you have everything configured, it is relatively straightforward. But it is not a single homogenous unit.

The licensing is perpetual licensing that you pay for once.

As far as the price of the license, I can't think of anyone who will say, "I'm happy with the pricing." There's always room for improvement. But, you get what you pay for. It's as simple as that. With vSphere, from my perspective, I don't want problems. I want it to be as seamless as possible. That's unfortunately why you've got to pay for it.

Regarding this solution, vSphere is the gold standard. It has been there for 15 years, and you're not going to find people who are dissatisfied with vSphere. You're not going to find people complaining about vSphere. The only thing you will find is when we talk about things like VxRail, things like that, where issues can come. vSphere by itself, I can't think of anybody who's not happy with it.

I would rate vSphere a ten out of ten. You're not going to find anything better.

We are using VMware vSphere on all of our servers in all environments.

The solution has many valuable features. Virtualization is flexible and it has simple clustering. However, the most important feature is the ability to move between VMs. The vMotion features are very good.

The monitoring is not good in vSphere, many times you have latency or you cannot find what you want. The events should be improved.

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

The stability is very good, but the performance is not good. If you have a large workload, you have to go to a physical service.

The solution is scalable, to add storage is easy.

We have approximately six administrators that use the solution in my organization.

I have needed the support of VMware on one occasion. The first level of support is not good but the second level is better and overall the response times tend to be poor.

The initial setup is easy.

I did the implementation of the solution myself. We do the regular maintenance ourselves.

I'm satisfied with the VMware vSphere price. They have a bundle that is priced well. However, any advantage feature is very costly.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate VMware vSphere an eight out of ten.

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.