VMware vSphere Reviews

We have Hyper-V on a physical machine and another virtual machine. We are using this because of iSCSI, and we are using VMware for performance and production.

The performance is efficient. You can log the performance and report on the bottlenecks or any other problems you encounter.

One of the areas creating a crash is when you are cloning.

If you are cloning a virtual machine and you have any license on another system it will crash and we have to contact third-party support for assistance.

It's not cloning 100%.

I have been using VMware vSphere for eight years.

We are using version 5 and 6.7.

It's a stable solution, we have not had any issues with stability.

It's a scalable solution. We have three people in our organization who are using this solution.

We did not contact technical support. It wasn't necessary.

We are working with Hyper-V. It was so poor that we started using VMware.

The initial setup was straightforward, it was easy.

The price could be lower.

We are looking for other solutions, specifically for Hyper-V and domain controllers.

I would recommend this solution. It's robust, it's working and it's easy to use.

I would rate VMware vSphere a ten out of ten.

We are a construction business and this solution enables us to securely operate our technology. We are customers of VMware vSphere and I'm the company's head of IT. 

We have many power outages and VMware is very reliable in terms of dealing with that kind of experience on a regular basis. 

The most valuable feature is the reliability for our own servers, the backup of the information on our servers. 

The main issue for us is the cost of the solution. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The stability is fine - we need to upgrade our hardware and that is currently an issue. 

We currently have 25 employees using this solution with another 20 users who work remotely.
We have two people managing vSphere.

Our experience with technical support has been very good. 

We previously used SAN products and we've recently decided that we're going to move to Nutanix. 

The initial setup was straightforward with deployment taking two weeks. We had an independent integrator who was responsible for this and they did a good job. 

This is a very good product for small business or community organizations. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I use VMware vSphere to run all my applications in a private cloud. I had all the applications in the standalone mode. I migrated them to the cloud. 

VMware vSphere is the best private-cloud solution.

It is expensive. They can improve the licensing cost for Cloud Director.

They can also improve the integration with other applications and the metering feature, which is currently not flexible.

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

It is very stable.

It is scalable. We have 100 users, and we plan to increase the usage.

The price is very high for professional services. I don't know why.

It is expensive in terms of cost, licensing, and professional services.

I would recommend it for big enterprises. I would rate VMware vSphere a nine out of ten. It is the best solution. 

• Enterprise Infrastructure.
• We are distributed across the nation and are primarily all remote employees. I was able to build our private cloud with the tool.
  
  

We are distributed across the nation and are primarily all remote employees. I was able to build our private cloud with the tool.

Virtualization of our environment has made our carbon footprint, the real estate necessary and the ease of deployment in time savings significant.

The thick client had features that were removed from the HTML5 web console and it has caused a learning curve deficiency. Training could be more customer-centric.

The primary use is to manage all of our virtual machines/servers and the ESX host. It is performing well.

We use it to incorporate our infrastructure around one product.

• Ease of access
• Manageability

We use it for our VDI infrastructure and managing virtual machines.

I would like to see the UI incorporating all of the functionality that the thick client had.

It is very stable.

Scalability is great.

I have used the product my entire IT career.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. I have been setting it up for 10 years.

Our ROI is time management savings.

Do not look at Microsoft.

The features we most value are:

• High availability (in ESXi)
• Disaster recovery (via SRM)
• Self-service portal via vRealize automation

The solution has helped us to achieve the following:

• Faster time to market our services
• Lower overall TCO

Commercially, the stock keeping units have changed with the latest iteration of the product.

We have been using the solution for five years.

We had some stability issues but VMware support has made the experience manageable.

We did not have any scalability issues.

I would rate the technical support as 8/10 mainly due to the speed in delivering resolutions to concerns encountered.

We did have a previous solution but it lacked the functionalities.

The setup was straightforward and vendor support is available from planning, to setup, to maintenance.

The cost might be higher than other products offered by the competition but, if implemented correctly, it is worth the investment.

We evaluated the Oracle VM solution.

This software is just another tool to get things done. Ensure that you have laid out your requirements and have carefully evaluated your priorities before acquiring a cloud solution.

• High performance for data access
• Scalability
• Simplicity

The more visible example is the performance seen by the user in my DaaS product.

A more graphical reporting of the health of vSAN.

I've been using it for six months to manage two clusters of four servers. One with vSphere ESX 5.5 with 30 ISCSi network storage, and one with vSphere ESX 6.0 with 40 vSAN six storage.

We had no issues during deployment.

For the moment, I have only one issue. One disk of a server is not seen by the system. I have opened this issue with Dell, but it’s not a hardware problem. I have to reboot the server but the problem persist.

We have had no issues scaling is to our needs.

Previously, I used a traditional ISCSi network with SAN.

It's simple because I followed their procedures. It only took me a week to see results.

I implemented it myself.

I pay for my consumption with VMware vCan Program.

Double check the hardware compatibility lists with the builder.

The most valuable features for us are its agility and that it provides us with the ability to make changes within the environment seamlessly. I also really like its stability; it's got a perfect track record. I can also provide support myself because the product is designed to allow for that sort of support.

It provides not just cost savings, but also peace of mind. I go back to the proven track record as it's the world-class, gold standard above and beyond the competition.

I think a lot of the areas of focus need to be on the user interface. There's been a lot of changes in recent years, the new carry-ons and the demands placed on the product. I think that they might be in the right spirit, but they still have a distance to go in that regard.

I think there's always room for improvement. I think that that's obvious in the track record that this thing has been setting because, every release, there's a very sharp increase in functionality and refinement, etc., but at the same time, it's a very, very good, solid product

We've used it for five years or so.

We've had no issues deploying it.

We've had no issues with stability.

I have had no issues with scalability for the product. If you go above and beyond most of my needs, in terms of items like the configuration maximums, for the most part I never come close, so they're continually evolving the product so that it will be able to support things that are not even realistic at this point in time. It's very forward-looking.

Technical support can be eventful. I can't depend entirely on the staff. I would say, for the most part, on the vast majority of issues, if it's a high-severity incident, you're able to get very good support. To the lowest severity incident, it's a little bit more scattershot.

There are a number of components to the product itself and, based on different architectures, it can change the complexity of that. But I would say, for the most part, it's very straightforward for an initial installation.

Definitely do your research. Leading into something, you don't just want to listen to just sales. You would like to know what the industry is giving, and in the case of this product, there is an enormous wealth of information, a wealth of community out there from which you can draw information to get a feel for kind of what you want to do, completely outside of the sales channel. Beyond that, it is probably beneficial to do something like a large-scale licensing unit to be able to get the kind of features that, on a larger scale, deployment is going to need.