VMware vSphere Reviews

It is os-independent having a very thin architecture with which it can offer unparalleled security and reliability. Unlike most other hypervisors in the market, this don't need a general purpose operating system clearing the hazards of processor overhead, Antivirus and other OS processor consumption. Its this feature makes it prominent in the market of hypervisors.

Well, not much drawbacks actually. It serves the purpose it is designed for but still a very few little things that i have notices that can be called its drawbacks can be 1. Fault tolerance limits features available to virtual machines. 2. Automatic fallback of VMs currently not supported. This can be crucial in some environments.

• VMware Server is problem solving and cost saving. • No need to buy hardware for every server required, just purchase one server and run multiple virtual machines on that single hardware. • Offers testing solutions, provisioning solutions, and makes testing and rolling out installation easier. • Easy to use technology and industry leader in virtualization technology.

• The new Graphic User Interface is not of high quality. • Web based User Interface means breaching compatibility with any principle of rich client applications, and means lots of bugs particular to every different browser

A major issue with this server is that there are several free solutions offered. These are very appealing because of the virtualization rollout that cuts costs. If your intention is to decrease costs by using the VMware Server instead of several machines for several servers, the horsepower of the VMware hardware should be very powerful or every virtual machine will experience a mess.

VMware is good for virtualization.

The licensing costs are expensive and most of the important features require a license. 

For example, we would like to use DRS but there is an additional license for that. If it were free then it would be very helpful. 

I have been working with VMware vSphere for three years.

This product is very stable. It gives you good visibility of your hardware and the loads on it.

Up to now, I haven't had a problem that caused me to contact the technical support team.

I have experience with using Proxmox on a single host for about two months, with Hyper-V. This setup is only in a lab and not for production.

For my initial setup, I am not using the entire functionality. We are using vMotion, storage, and clustering.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

• Storage vMotion helps a lot when migrating from one storage vendor to another
• Storage vMotion migrates a virtual machine and its disk files from one data store to another while the virtual machine is running, with no down time.
• We can move virtual machines off of arrays for maintenance or upgrade
• We have the flexibility to optimize disks for performance or to transform disk types

We migrated our storage from IBM DS4700 & V7000 to VNX 5400 smoothly through storage vMotion.

I would like to see data recovery responsible for the virtual machine snapshot. It is not reliable as the parent snapshot gets corrupted and the whole corresponding snapshots collapse.

We have been using this solution since 2009.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

The initial setup is straightforward. The only complexity appears with inherited network security policies.

Pricing is a little bit high, but you have to value stability, scalability and the support level which are the most valuable parts of any solution.

Choose VMware to gain the proper stability, scalability, and flexibility with premium support.

We're able to centrally manage our infrastructure.

Its ability to tie into Veeam is really slick – that makes using Veeam really easy.

I'd like to see a different client. I know they are doing the HTML5 stuff with the web client, which has potential, but it could be better.

I think it’s great – we've never had any issues and we've been using it for a long time, about five years.

I think it's really good, it's good for our size and for our future growth. Our company has around 12,000 users.

I haven’t had a lot of interaction because I haven’t really needed to, but when I have they’ve been responsive and support has been good.

No. Our parent company has Hyper-V and it’s no good.

It’s pretty straightforward, not complex at all.

I would highlight compatibility with hosts, ease of use, consistency, reliability – all things that are better than Hyper-V.

Peer reviews are significant, but you can tell the most from firsthand experience.

High Availability, DRS, SDRS, DvSwitch, NIOC

Better management of the virtual infrastructure

Web Client, SSO

1.5 years

No

No

Yes

Brilliant hyper-visor with proven virtualization stack.

You need to learn the internals of the system to really customize and reap all benefits.

It is one easy to install and manage vitualization technique. Its pretty fast also, compared to some other vitualization techniques. And that is because its has a very small amout of resource overhead. It lacks the server console which decreases its booting time.

We can say its free but it's not. Free versions has limited capabilities and misses some very strong features. So in my opinion its not free. Other then that, it misses the console, which may be good from booting point of view, but from troubleshooting point of view, its bad. As it takes a lot more administrations skills to tackle problem without the proper control panes in the form of the console panel.