VMware vSphere Reviews

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.

It is used for some databases to the application server and any load that you can think about.

There are many features that are valuable and that excites me. However, it totally depends upon the customer. I'm working on the behalf of a service provider, who supports a customer. How useful it depends on what kind of licensing the customer carries.

The initial setup is straightforward and not overly complex.

Its scalability potential is good.

The solution is quite stable. 

Technical support has been good.

I can't speak to any missing features. It has everything I need.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

We have found the solution to be stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale and expands well. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

The solution offers helpful and responsive technical support. We're quite satisfied with eh level of service on offer. 

We have found the setup process to be simple and straightforward. There wasn't too much complexity or difficulty.

We are with one of the service providers. I'm managing VMware.

We are not working with the latest version of the solution. We're working with, for example, N-1.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We are very happy with its capabilities and don't have anything negative to say.

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.

We are a solution provider and VMware vSphere is one of the products that I have experience with. This product is used as a virtual IT environment. It hosts applications such as SQL databases.

The GUI is very simple to use.

The user experience is good.

Stability-wise, there are some minor issues.

I have been working with VMware vSphere for between 10 and 15 years.

There are some issues with stability, although I don't think that it is a big problem. In general, it is a good product.

Scalability has not been a problem. Israel is a small country, so the level of service is less.

As a system integrator, I have not had to contact technical support.

I have experience with KVM and it is also easy to use, but it is not as good as VMware.

It is easy to deploy this solution from nothing.

We deploy and maintain this solution with our in-house team.

This is an expensive product and the price needs to be reduced.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

If you have a mixed environment that includes Windows, Linux, and other operating systems then this product is a good choice. However, if you have a purely Linux environment, such as Red Hat, then you can save money and have better performance by implementing KVM instead.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it to host our business-critical applications and servers on-premise.

I have found the Storage vMotion feature to be the most valuable.

It is a very user-friendly solution.

One problem that needs fixing is when we run the backup for the servers, the servers become inaccessible to everybody on-site while it is creating a snapshot. If your server size is large you will have to wait longer when the server is unavailable. 

In the future, it would be a benefit for VMware to improve on the Storage vMotion feature by making it become faster between host. It takes a lot of time to transfer files between hosts currently.

I have been using the solution for six years.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability in my experience is good.

I was not at the company when they did the deployment of vSphere version 5.5 but I did do the deployment of a host on version 6.7, which is quite straightforward.

The pricing is reasonable and you are able to purchases licencing for certain time frame intervals, monthly, yearly etc.

I would definitely recommend the solution to others working in IT.

I would give the solution a nine but the vMotion feature takes too long for transferring files between stored data sources.

I rate VMware vSphere an eight out of ten.

I'm always sort of working with the servers, therefore, whenever there is a requirement for a different kind of server, I deal with it. For example, one of my departments asked me to provide one server where they can store some files. Instead of getting a full physical server, we created some virtual machines on vSphere and gave it to the department so they could store their data there. That is one where we are using the server. Sometimes we buy software from outside, and there are specific requirements on hardware - for example, X amount much of RAM is required, Y amount of CPU is required, etc., so we try to use the vSphere to create the virtual machines for that.

It's not a particular feature, really, however, I can say that the solution is just easy to maintain, and makes it easy to backup all those VMs. We can easily save our data and we can deploy VM machines very fast and create the delivery of the server in a pretty simple, dynamic way.

Our company has very limited requirements. We just create VMs and deploy VMs on the machine and give the users access. It's solving our problems perfectly. I'm not using any advanced features right now, however, it is sufficient. 

It's very simple and I really like it overall. 

I can't think of any features that are missing. I'm not really using any advanced options and don't have complex requirements.

The solution could be a bit more user-friendly.

I've been using the solution for eight years now. It's been quite a while.

The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it out, they can do so with relative ease.

There are four or five users that work directly with the solution, however, we have it deployed to many departments, so it's used quite a bit in the company. We have about 10-20 servers that are running on the machines.

Right now, we're happy with it, however, we may move to a different product that is even more scalable in the future, That's yet to be decided.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. Whenever we've logged a ticket, it's resolved very well. Everyone is quite knowledgeable, and whenever there is a requirement to follow a query, their tech team resolves those queries very efficiently and our problems were always resolved. We're pretty satisfied with their level of service.

We didn't previously use a different product.

We're considering moving to a different product in the future that could potentially scale even better than this. The reason we haven't moved yet is the fact that it's not easy for us to deploy and migrate all the machines from VMware to any other product.

We didn't actually handle the installation, and therefore I can't really talk about the process, as I wasn't involved directly.

The company that we bought had installed the vSphere for us and that server is still running from last year. We haven't touched it.

The solution was actually installed by the company that we ended up buying, and therefore we didn't directly handle any aspect of the implementation.

We have the licensing for the solution and the perpetual license which we have allows us to choose whether we want a support license separate or not. It's not an overly expensive solution. The pricing is average.

We're currently in the process of evaluating other options on the market to see if there are open-source options that could work for us or products that scale even better than vSphere.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with vSphere.

We aren't using the latest version of the solution. The near version is sufficient for us and it's solving our requirements.

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

While I would recommend it due to the fact that it's solving my problems, I am evaluating other products that may be better. There may be an open-source option that could also work for us.  That said, this product is great in that we are using it hassle-free.