VMware vSphere Reviews

Private cloud is the use case for VMware vSphere. Private cloud is the purpose I use it for because there are customers who need a cloud in their on-premise environment or co-location.

In that use case, we use VMware Cloud Foundation.

The life cycle management and the ease of deployment are the best features in the product from my integrator perspective.

Load balancing is a separate product because they have some enterprise load balancer, which needs to be purchased additionally. In VMware Cloud Foundation, there is only a basic load balancer.

This is a suite of products, so it's a single bill of material. We get all their product versions which are compatible with VMware Cloud Foundation.

VMware vSphere is able to save time and money for my customers. We can say 10% is the approximate amount of savings because most of the things are automated and streamlined, so the manual work is eliminated in most cases.

The pricing is an area for improvement in the product. The solution is a bit expensive.

Not having a perfect score means some room for improvement exists.

There is no way to reach the engineers directly. If we create a case, then for other OEMs, we get the assigned engineer and we can connect to them and work closely. In Broadcom, this is not possible.

I have been dealing with this product for three years so far.

The solution is easy to deploy, which means it is also easy to set up; the initial setup and installation are straightforward.

It's a very stable product.

The solution is completely scalable and can be hybrid as well. You can stretch to any public cloud, which is also possible.

I am happy with the technical support from VMware. I would rate technical support eight out of ten points, with one being bad and ten being good.

I have never been dealing with something similar to VMware vSphere or solutions from other vendors for the same purpose.

The solution is easy to deploy, which means it is also easy to set up; the initial setup and installation are straightforward.

I still use those things regarding the technology I work with.

VMware vSphere is able to save time and money for my customers. We can say 10% is the approximate amount of savings because most of the things are automated and streamlined, so the manual work is eliminated in most cases.

I have never been dealing with something similar to VMware vSphere or solutions from other vendors for the same purpose.

I am not interested to be a reference for Broadcom. I am using basically VMware vSphere and Cloud Foundation.

They released a new version of the VMware vSphere solution on June 17, so I'm yet to explore that version completely. I am not using the latest version because it was only released 10 days ago, so we are just exploring it.

Currently, I do not feel that there are complexities or challenges from a technical standpoint.

I rate VMware vSphere a 9 out of 10.

We use VMware vSphere for virtualization purposes. We are telling our clients to use more options for virtualization.

The high availability feature is significant. For virtualization, we prefer to have options for reconfiguration and efficient use. However, the software requires shutting down for reconfiguration, and backup requires shutdown too, which is a limitation. The VMs work smoothly, which is beneficial.

Sometimes, we need valid certificates for VMware, however, we are unable to add the certificates. Another area is the stability during upgrades from older versions to newer versions, where we face issues.

We have been working with VMware vSphere for more than seven years.

The VMs work smoothly with no issues, but there is a risk upgrading from older to newer versions, where we've faced some issues.

There are no scalability options available in VMware vSphere.

We do not have experience of directly contacting their technical support.

The initial setup was easy, and we didn't experience any difficulties. We set it up very easily.

We have no experience with the pricing as we are using the free version.

We might suggest CrossPlox or HackerMesh solutions to others since they are Linux based.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate VMware vSphere six or seven. If I feel that the requirement is best fit with VMware vSphere, then I suggest it. If not, I suggest other solutions.

We use the solution in servers for digitalization. Our digital products, like mobile and internet banking, run on them.

We are running critical applications like mobile applications on vSphere.

The tool offers virtualization and monitoring.

Virtual machine snapshots and consolidation need to be improved. Also, there are licensing and subscription issues.

I have been using VMware vSphere for 3 years.

I rate the solution’s stability a 9 out of 10.

The solution is scalable. 5 users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an 8 out of 10.

Customer support takes a long time to respond.

Neutral

We have used Nutanix. We opted for VMware because the environment is good.

The initial setup is very easy and takes half an hour to complete, but it is costly since it has training costs and tutorials. The 3 tutorials are included in this package. They somewhat automate, but it's not enough.

Earlier, the solution had a perpetual license, but now, it has a subscription. Also, they have increased the price. The certification is costly.

vSphere has the DRS site. We got the recovery site feature, but we haven't used it. It's good to use the high availability to be more than AWS. We have many weekly metrics running on these.

Overall, I rate the solution an 8 out of 10.

Our company uses VMware vSphere Versions 6.5, 6.7 and 7.0. My company is trying to deploy all the VMs on VMware vSphere Version 8 since it has some new features. The old versions of the tool don't support some of the VMs, specifically in the area of vMotion.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance. Nowadays, people are trying to move on Kubernetes. People prefer deploying services over the Kubernetes.

n areas like coding and microservices, users can find lots of features in Kubernetes. With Kubernetes, if one of your pods is down, then automatically, another pod will be up, so there are no manual tasks or opt for microservices since such a pod will run in the back end automatically.

The integration capabilities of the solution have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using VMware vSphere for two years.

It is a stable solution. It is only during the production phase involving Kubernetes that our company can determine whether VMware vSphere can remain stable or not.

It is a scalable solution. Many people who use the product in our company work in the back end processes. Around 20 to 30 people in my company work with VMware vSphere and Kubernetes.

Speaking about the application deployment process, I work at the L1 level in my company. In my company, the L3 is a different department that manages the application deployment process, and most of them go for tools apart from the ones under VMware to manage the VMs. I am only creating new VMs and assigning RAM space, and if something comes up, then I create new RHEL-based systems.

When it comes to the application deployment process, my company manually deploys the applications. For automation purposes, our company uses Jenkins to collect the logs and provide a GUI with the help of a username and password to the end user, after which they can collect the logs from Jenkins.

I work at an L1 level in my company. The integrations and infrastructure-related areas of the product are managed by another team in my company.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

Nowadays, people don't prefer to go for cloud-based solutions. Most of the companies prefer VMware as they want some level of security in the environment. VMware allows users to have in-house products. Most companies or banks are not moving over to cloud-based tools. VMware is used in banking systems.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

This solution has a very comfortable interface for snapshots for my virtual machines. That's very comfortable.

For example, if I want to make templates to create a certain type of virtual machine, I have it in vSphere. Moreover, it includes things like deployment, implementation of different templates, snapshot deleting snapshot, restoring a machine to snapshot or administrative administration things.

The web console is the most valuable feature for me.  Because no matter what happens with the server, I can still get to it with the web console.

There is room for improvement in Google Cloud. The reason thing there was, like, when I type something in the terminal and then immediately, I need to go to edit the certain like file for Node.js, for the server, or for Kubernetes. So I have to do it from the terminal to the editor.

And for some reason, each time I had to switch, I had to literally switch between the terminal and the editor. I wish I could have it on one screen to have the terminal and on the other to have the editor.  This would greatly improve my experience with this solution. 

I have been using it for a couple of years.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is very stable, and I have never had any major problems with it.

There are over a few hundred users using this solution in our organization. 

I would rate the scalability a solid eight out of ten.  It is scalable enough for my needs, but there is always room for improvement.

The initial setup was very easy and intuitive.

If I didn't understand something, this solution provides tons of information,e explanations,  courses, and instructions on their website. We also live in a reality of chatbots and AI, so everything is very easy to set up. 

I would advise you to check out the VMware website and watch some of the initial and fundamental courses. The web console is very intuitive, but it can be helpful to see how it works before you start using it. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We have been virtualizing our on-premises data center. We relied heavily on VMware vSphere to manage our servers; all our virtual server loads are hosted on it.

The tool comes with scale-out capabilities. Deploying new infrastructure became much quicker, saving significant time previously spent sourcing hardware for each installation. It also has the ability to downscale on rack spaces, reducing the number of rack units needed to accommodate our servers.

Its most valuable feature is remote replication which comes with high availability. 

I would suggest that the tool reconsider its pricing strategy. The recent price hikes could potentially pose a problem for VMware in the future. The recent price increases, especially since Broadcom acquired them, seem excessive. There are reports of businesses experiencing massive price hikes, sometimes as much as 10-30 times higher. This is causing smaller businesses to consider exiting the space altogether.

Overall, it's a functional system that works well. However, I believe that systems like Nutanix offer better integration and functionality. While both are solid hypervisors at level one, VMware vSphere's management, especially through the web-based interface, could use improvement.

I have been working with the product for 15 to 16 years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

VMware vSphere is highly scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten. My company has 400 users. 

I rate the tool's ease of deployment a six out of ten. It was quite complex due to various hardware restrictions and issues. We had to address several technical issues with VMware along the way.

I would rate the deployment process as typical regarding time and considerations. However, the migration from on-premises to the cloud was a bit cumbersome. It required a bit of work. 

The installation phase took about three months initially when we deployed on-premises. This duration was understandable as we had to virtualize numerous physical servers and handle various complexities. Transitioning to the cloud extended the project timeline to approximately six months.

I believe the biggest return on investment stemmed from significantly reduced deployment time frames. Commissioning and deploying systems and accommodating growth became much faster—measured in days rather than months. This efficiency and consolidation efforts resulted in a high long-term ROI.

I rate the solution's pricing a ten out of ten due to the recent price changes. 

My advice to those considering VMware vSphere would be to carefully assess your business's size and the product's value proposition. It may not be well-suited for smaller enterprises due to its prohibitive cost. It's important to consider alternative solutions. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We can maintain our own infrastructure according to our needs. We need to buy the solution only once, and we can do what we need to do. We can deploy several servers. We can also deploy other machines. We can create templates. OVF is the best feature. We can create an OVF, send it to the other node, and create similar VMs with the OVF.

We can deploy our own bare metal hypervisor over the hardware at the required capacity. We must know how to configure it. The product is not difficult to use. The users access their PCs using a remote desktop protocol. It is as simple as using our own laptops. The solution’s high availability is very good. The tool provides 99.99% uptime.

The hardware cost is high. We need to change the hardware after some time. It is a big headache for the organization. Private clouds are more secure than public clouds. However, public clouds offer services that we can never see in vSphere. VMware must improve its login page.

The UI must be improved. The solution must improve its log system. When a machine fails, it mentions the log but doesn't describe the infrastructure or how the code is designed. If I put one machine on migration and it fails, the log is generated as the user timed out and disconnected the host. Apart from this, there's nothing else mentioned in the log. It is difficult to identify the problem with the machine. The log system is very poor.

It is a challenge to increase the storage. If we have ten users when we start, but the load on the server increases to 20 or 30 after a month, there is a chance that the site will go down. We have to be proactive in implementing datastore. If we have ten users, we must plan to have hardware for 20 users. The cost will be high, but it will be more secure.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The on-premise version is stable.

We are a client-based organization. The number of users depends on the clients. There might be 5200 people using the product in our clients’ organizations.

We have deployed the solution on-premises. The solution has a private cloud, too. There are no hybrid connections available. The initial setup is not difficult, but it is not easy. A normal user cannot do it. We need the expertise to install bare metal. The installation is easy if we know the configuration criteria.

The tool is neither expensive nor cheap. The pricing depends on the users. Suppose we have 100 users, and the architectural team spends $10,000 on infrastructure to build the data center. After some years, we have to replace the systems and upgrade them.

Since I am an engineer, I troubleshoot the issues I face. I recommend people use a public cloud provider. If someone requires a separate data center, they can choose VMware. It is the best solution on-premises and as a private cloud. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I deal with the solution in my company to work in the area of data center virtualization.

The most valuable features of the solution are in areas like VMware vSphere vMotion and vSphere HA.

From what I know, the area revolving around the licensing part of the product is not quite friendly. The licenses for those who have a partnership with VMware are not a good thing because we have to use the tool for demos and simulate it in a customer environment. In our company's setup, considering that we have a partnership with VMware, it is very hard to have licenses, making it an area where improvements are required. VMware's NFR licenses were previously available for partners, and the tool used to provide demo centers within such licenses, but the aforementioned licensing structure for partners has been presently discontinued. The product should also provide the partners with the facility to provide the tool's demo in a test environment for customers.

The solution's technical team is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using VMware vSphere for five years. My company has a partnership with VMware.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Our company's main customers who work with the solution use it in sectors like banking, finance, and government.

My company deals with small, medium, and enterprise-sized customers who use the tool.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

The solution's technical team offers fairly good support in some cases, and in a few other cases, they need to offer more help, which is quite difficult to get, and it also depends on the support engineer our company gets.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup phase an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means that the setup was a very easy process.

The solution is deployed on the public cloud and hybrid cloud.

The tool's deployment phase takes time, as it is not a quick process. The tool's deployment phase takes a few days to be completed.

The tool is a bit expensive.

With VMware vSphere, it is easy to manage the scaling of our company's virtual infrastructure.

VMware vSphere helps our company's customers in the area of virtualization since it provides good scalability features. In the government sector, people need to engage in a lot of documentation work when purchasing new hardware, and it can be helpful to use the product in such a scenario. In any environment, the product is easy to scale for general usage.

VMware vSphere's high availability or FT feature is used by our company's customers in their clusters to keep their servers available as much as they can. The use of the product ensures minimum downtime, and its users prefer to use the high availability feature of the tool.

The performance and efficiency of the use of the solution have improved our company's customers' organizations. From the use of VMware vSphere, the performance and efficiency of your customers have increased by 30 to 40 percent.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use the product for server virtualization.

VMware vSphere has a user-friendly GUI. It is easy to deploy and find troubleshooting articles as well.

There could be an inbuilt dashboard for reporting purposes. At present, we have to use another paid solution for the same.

We have been using VMware vSphere for the last ten years.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. We have a huge environment with VMware infrastructure for multiple users.

We encountered some delays with the responses from the technical support team. The resolutions could be more informative.

Neutral

We used Citrix before. It could be more stable. Comparing both the solutions, VMware is better than Citrix.

The initial setup process is straightforward. It takes around four to five hours for end-to-end configuration. We have 60 to 70 engineers to manage the deployment. 

The product helps us save around 20% to 30% of costs.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a three out of ten. They have multiple products with extra services. It increases the cost.

I recommend VMware vSphere and rate it an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for clusters with shared storage on-premises with recovery. We use Veeam to back up some replication of these installations.

It provides stability with performance and broad support for hardware solutions.

It is pricey for small business. There are bundles that make competitive for out-of-bundle solutions that smaller businesses can't afford. If they will be the end of the sale, a cost problem arises for them.

I have been using VMware vSphere for over ten years.

It is recommended for small and medium-sized businesses.

I have no directly needed VMware support. We always have resolved our troubles with documentation.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward because of good documentation. It depends on the installation. Optimizing deployment takes a few days for a cluster with shared storage. One person can deploy the smaller clusters. We are training the lab to deploy the different solutions.

It offers a good return on investment because its maintenance and subscription costs are very durable. So once you deploy the first installation, upgrading or the infrastructure is quite easy and straightforward in the future.

The small distribution price is very convenient because they are really affordable bundles for three or fewer nodes. For bigger installation, it starts to be pricey, but it's also scaled with the business side.

Maintenance is required as long as any other products to check for troubles and some security patching.

The version enables automatic maintenance, easy maintenance, and performance performance. A good performance use of the hardware allows for quick infrastructure maintenance and a quick structure upgrade so you can change hardware servers quickly and cheaply.

It's useful for critical workloads. When there are inevitable failures, it can keep up the business.

The server was particularly limiting performance-wise, while Hyper V lacked stability and flexibility in the setups.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.