vCenter Configuration Manager Reviews

My usual use cases for vCenter Configuration Manager mainly involve migration, shift and lift mainly, and some type of automation in order to create VMs.

I tried using vCenter Configuration Manager's integration with the VMware environments to manage my virtual infrastructures, but it's not fully in production.

The migration feature of vCenter Configuration Manager is the most loved feature so far.

This particular feature is valuable because it is vendor-oriented and works with VMware, which makes your life easy.

Regarding system reliability, it is helpful. When you design it for the process, it will help you minimize the downtime, and it will help the reliability of the system.

vCenter Configuration Manager has impacted my organization positively, but it's not fully deployed yet; we only use it for one or two tasks, and our team goes back to using the vCenter itself. However, further on, maybe we'll find a use case that will help us use the configuration manager.

My impression on the impact of the real-time monitoring features of vCenter Configuration Manager is that it's somewhat good, but you cannot find the full log message; you have to dig deep in order to get it.

I think vCenter Configuration Manager could be improved in the real-time monitoring aspect; I have to dig deeper for a full review right now. Anything related to the logs would be helpful; this is what we are always facing with VMware products in general, also with vCenter Configuration Manager. The real-time logs need to be effective.

My experience with the initial setup of vCenter Configuration Manager was very easy.

Regarding stability, I find it was very stable; once you configure the IP and everything, it will be forever.

I didn't reach the scalability point with vCenter Configuration Manager because one VM was very good for me.

Before vCenter Configuration Manager, I didn't use any other solution for these use cases; they are new, and we've been exploring vCenter Configuration Manager since it's been available.

Before using VMware, I didn't evaluate other options; I only used manual things, nothing automated.

The steps I went through while setting this solution up include importing the OVA template ready, and that was it—next, next, next, next. Nothing special.

For the initial setup, I didn't use an integrator, reseller, or consultant; it was done in-house.

I have worked with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN and vCenter.

I work with vCenter Orchestrator and vCenter Configuration Manager, both.

I haven't utilized the comprehensive audit and compliance reporting feature of this solution.

Real-time monitoring has minimized downtime.

I haven't seen any impact of these integrations because everybody is used to using the regular vCenter. Nobody wants to go with an extra layer configuration manager, while I'm looking to explore more into this.

I didn't go deep into the change management mechanisms of vCenter Configuration Manager to manage system alterations, so I kept it just high level. When you have something you need to do, you try it.

I chose VMware specifically because our infrastructure is currently VMware, so we would love to use a vendor-oriented solution that will be helpful, especially with compatibility issues.

I used the regular manual for this tool. My impression of the manual is that it is very straightforward.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 8.

The use case is for a Configuration Manager. I am using it for managing virtual machines.

The features are easy to handle and straightforward. It is easy for me to manage and migrate them. Compliance management is a strong connection compared to Azure Machine Intelligence. Managing virtual machine centers is helpful for us.

Regarding the licensing part, previously I was able to acquire the license with an eight-core configuration. Now it requires a 16-core setup, which is difficult for customers who have fewer connections to the servers.

I have been using the solution for one year.

I am not facing any issues with stability.

There are no significant scalability issues so far.

I would rate the customer service as eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. Usually, I need just one person to install it, although more people can be involved.

Nowadays, it is a bit expensive. It's costly, primarily due to the licensing aspect.

I am not using any advanced features or AI. I am employing a basic VMware vCenter setup for my infrastructure. Scalability has no major limitations, and the solution is efficient. 

Overall, it's satisfactory. I would rate the vCenter experience as seven out of ten due to concerns regarding license, pricing, and AI features. 

I use the solution for customer management and the vDA environment to implement and deploy the solution. We can deploy 300 or 400 VMs in a fraction of a second. I also use the solution for cluster management, with more than three or four hosts, managing everything in a single window.

There is an HCI called vSAN, and the vSAN environment reduces 90% of the work in vCenter because we can do everything from a single interface.

I like vMotion because it manages fault tolerance. A major concern was that we needed to manage the environment and enable all functionalities from a single console, which is the major agenda met by vCenter. There are only two versions available, Foundation and Standard. Foundation has limited functionality, such as VM database movement and traffic management. In the Standard version, we get all the functions that are enabled.

When vCenter is in a Microsoft environment, there is a lot of licensing involved, where we face some difficulties. Moreover, some functionalities may be hidden in VMware. Everything depends upon the licensing because they have segregated two or three different versions of licenses. Everything is easier when you know all the terms and policies. Some things will be hidden when your customer asks for it, but you check with them to get confirmation and support from VMware. However, when people are newly entering the market and they want some support from VMware, the support received from them is pathetic.

I've been familiar with this solution for almost eight years.

The solution is stable. In some cases, the customer might develop their own applications. The moment we need support from the hypervisor team, the solution isn't as stable because, in some cases, we may not receive support immediately, and in some cases, we will.

The solution is completely scalable. We can implement it as a single federation with up to 96 nodes. There are a lot of products in VMware. For SMB customers, there is a product called Essentials. An SMB can use Essentials for over 500 users. However, Essentials can only be used on three hosts. There is a product known as the Essentials Plus kit that comes with vSphere, vCenter, and other products. The Standard license has socket-based licenses. Support with Essentials will be taken care of, and the product comes with management software, a hypervisor, and more. Though it costs a lot less, the functionality is very limited. The customer should go with the Standard edition when looking for higher functionality or more VMs or stability. They should go with the Enterprise Plus editions if they are looking for DRS, which means distributed resource scheduler and fault tolerance.

They should improve their support and license management. We sometimes provide support through three-tier or two-tier licensing, which means we are resellers. Here, we might have an enterprise customer who handles their enterprise partners through a global or named account, though that depends on the project. When I am selling to a customer, they have to transfer that license to the end user. If VMware makes it easier to transfer the license, that would be helpful for us.

Neutral

We have a very good team to implement the solution. We don't get any support. We handle the implementation since we work hands-on with the solution, day in and day out. Unless it's in a foreign state, we request support from the OEM.

When it comes to license generation or some other patches, and I require VMware support, that's when I get irritated with them.

vCenter's pricing is reasonable, but nowadays, they are drastically increasing their prices, which is pathetic. We would work for three to six months on our tenders and projects. When you commit three months to a customer, it is only after people have had many internal technical discussions that they come back, which may take a minimum of three to six months, at which point the price might already be higher.

With the software and three years of support, the Standard version costs us over 600,000 rupees.

VMware is working on plenty of products, and the one you want depends on your customers' use cases.

According to the market, drastic changes are coming in AI and ML. Regarding AI and ML, the price is higher, and the support is also very low. VMware can develop similar products with minimum functionality for entry-level products. VMware products are all on the higher end and would be in Enterprise Plus. There are a lot of licensing variations, with vCenter on the Standard version and vSphere on the Enterprise version.

I rate vCenter eight out of ten.

We use it during the deployment of the virtual infrastructure. It holds significant importance for both our clients and our teams, enabling supervision and manipulation of the infrastructure.

The features I find most valuable are Azureview and the dashboard.

One area that could be improved is the integration of all VMware services.

Other areas for improvement include integration, stability, support, and pricing.

I have been using this solution for ten years. 

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the stability around five out of ten. While it is decent, it does not match the stability of products like AMOS, which are designed for high availability. Some bugs have been observed.

I would rate the scalability quite good. You can extend your environment effectively with appropriate investment.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. Achieving a ten is challenging because integrating new servers or services isn't very straightforward. Some complexities arise during such expansions.

We have around 20 to 30 customers using this solution.

The customer service and support are not as good as that of other solutions. It is not very fast. It is often carried out via phone. The responses are not very clarified. We are not satisfied with the type of support we receive.  There is room for improvement in terms of speed and people should be more qualified. 

Neutral

The setup process is quite straightforward at the moment. However, with the increasing use of Kubernetes and the challenges of offline installations, it might become more complex in the future. Developing alternative solutions could ease the process.

From start to finish, it took about one or two days to ensure everything was deployed correctly.

The critical steps in the deployment process included ensuring the client team's availability and obtaining necessary access, credentials, materials, and software. These were essential to guarantee the success of the mission.

We require about eight engineers in total for deployment and maintenance. 

The solution is quite expensive. VMware's recent changes in pricing strategy have caused concerns among clients, making it challenging to communicate this shift. Before, it was an acquisition strategy, and now it is a rental strategy. Clients are not ready to go in that direction. 

The payment model is on a yearly basis. There are some additional costs, such as similar trackers, but they are manageable.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend using this solution. 

It's crucial to ensure where the solution needs to be deployed and the number of virtual machines that require supervision. Comparing it with other market solutions is also essential to ensure it's the right fit.

I use the solution in my company for all kinds of configurations, ranging from basic to advanced. With the tool, you can also add all upgrade plans with some customers' migration plans. I did three projects in Canada during the current year involving migration from VMware to Nutanix. I have done many things related to VMware and Nutanix.

Based on my experience working with VMware products for a long time, I can say that vCenter Configuration Manager is a good and stable solution. The flexibility offered by the product is its valuable feature.

The only challenge my company faces with the solution in relation to the customers is something that is directly related to the tool's pricing. If we compare vCenter Configuration Manager with Nutanix, the latter has a clearer strategy in regard to pricing and licensing. With VMware's recent changes, customers are confused about the tool. The challenges related to the tool are not technical in nature, as they are more about sales for me.

From an improvement perspective, if VMware offers one interface like Nutanix to operate all its tools, then it will be a perfect product.

I have been using vCenter Configuration Manager since 2012. My company has a partnership with VMware.

The product is stable, specifically VMware vCenter Server 7.0. I don't know if VMware vCenter Server 8.0 is stable or not because the only thing I did with it was an upgrade for one of my company's customers. With the integration of vCenter Configuration Manager with VMware vSphere Lifecycle Manager, some customers can use the update or patch quickly. If customers find any instability in the tool, they can check the patching or get an update directly from the VMware vSphere Lifecycle Manager.

It is not an easily scalable tool, but it is possible if you have a new platform or want to expand a platform. You need to reconfigure everything and reinstall the tool from the beginning. If you want to use a different sizing, you can change it directly from the actual one, but you need to plan it beforehand. Imagine you have only vCenter Configuration Manager for three servers, and you didn't know that in the future, you may have more physical servers. When you add more physical servers to your environment, you need to resize your vCenter Configuration Manager to follow the huge added workload. In the aforementioned case, you need to prepare your vCenter, but I don't see such configurations being complex, though some customers have not done it before and may find it complex.

Using the scalability features of the product is easy.

I have never contacted the support team of VMware. I don't have any idea about how the product can improve its efficiency and performance. I don't know if the product is supportive of operating in Canada since it is divided into two parts, namely French and English. I don't know if the product of support in French for the residents in Quebec.

For vCenter Configuration Manager, if I want to search for something suddenly, VMware has a very big online community where you can find all the answers related to the product along with the experiences of other people who are involved in some special kind of configurations related to the product. I found the answer to my queries through the online community for VMware NSX.

Compared to the other tools I have used before vCenter Configuration Manager, I can say that they don't offer the same architecture as vCenter because, if a user considers the objective of the solution, then it can be said that its purpose is to manage all the resources from one interface. I think that to see what improvements are required in vCenter Configuration Manager, you need to compare it with Nutanix, as it is a tool that improves the efficiency of monitoring, management, and operation platforms. From one tool, you get to use multiple functionalities, and it allows you to upgrade, monitor, and do health checks. The aforementioned details state the reason why VMware wants to merge all its products. If VMware merges all its products, then the administrator can use the tool with just one interface, which is technically helpful, especially if you do the handover of the product after the completion of a project since it is not easy to explain different products and hand over different products.

I have taken care of the product's easy and complex setup phases with many customers not only in Canada but across the globe.

I rate the product's setup phase a ten on a scale of one to ten, where ten means the easiest setup.

My team has faced challenges during the implementation process in the past, but not anymore.

For monitoring purposes, I use VMware Aria Operations and VMware vROps.

I use the product to migrate from physical to virtual servers. I use the product from scratch. I start from zero and ensure that our company's customers get all the configurations they want. Sometimes, I do some operations in my company's customers' environment and in the production part, which is a different operation involving expansion, upgrades, or new reconfigurations. My use of the tool depends on the use case of our company's customers.

I haven't used the product's automation capabilities to improve my company's administrative tasks. There are some other tools in my company that are used for automation. Even for the scripting part, vCenter Configuration Manager was not used. With vCenter Configuration Manager, I had only used the scripting part once for one migration, but it wasn't a high-level script.

Speaking about the product's ability to save resources and time, I can say that in some projects, the use of resources was really high use and was not used correctly. After my company installed the VMware solution at our customers' locations, they saw that there was a big difference between their physical environment and virtual environment.

VMware has changed its strategy with Broadcom related to different products. VMware has now merged everything into one product with the help of VMware Cloud Foundation, which I think is the best idea for the moment, especially considering how it has many tools, interfaces, and different tools to manage VMware. With time, the customers might start to feel a bit confused about how to manage the tools and how to be certified by VMware. The customers may have a lot of questions related to the tool in their minds. I think the strategy of merging everything into VMware Cloud Foundation will be good for VMware since everything can be merged into one interface.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. The market share of VMware is huge. It is not even necessary to prove the capabilities attached to the product. The only reason that VMware needs to prove itself in the market is because some of the customers have started to use solutions like Proxmox, Nutanix, and other such products. The challenge for VMware is to prove to the customers that it is the leader in all kinds of solutions it offers.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

The product's ability to support memory should be increased in the future as it is currently an area of concern in the solution.

Some of the migrations are difficult to manage since the solution is not compatible with a few of the operating systems, which poses a challenge during the physical to virtual migration process.

I have been using vCenter Configuration Manager for five years. My company recommends the solution to our customers.

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

The tool's scalability is good and easy, especially when compared to Microsoft Hyper-V. Scalability in vCenter Configuration Manager can be used from the hardware itself. Hyper-V's scalability options can be used only with the help of Windows OS.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was okay, and there were no issues.

The product price and licensing fees are reasonable, especially when compared to other products in the market.

The product provides very good visibility. With vCenter Configuration Manager, you can manage any kind of all these features of VMware vSAN, VMware vSphere Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS), and VMware vSphere HA along with hyper-converged systems. The product is also helpful in the VMware vSphere live migration area.

Speaking about the product's ability to manage virtual environments, I feel that the migration from a physical to a virtual environment is a bit difficult. Virtual to virtual, live migrations, storage migrations, and the use of the snapshot in VMware vSphere replication are all great features of the tool.

The product can be easily integrated with Windows Hyper-V.

The product's automation capabilities benefit our company's daily operations since it supports Windows PowerShell Commands along with many other commands, including ESXCLI Commands.

The product's patch management area is very simple to use. VMware vCenter Server 6.5, 7.0, and 8.0 are okay for patch management.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. Nowadays, Hyper-V is implemented in most organizations since VMware is considered to be too old.

I consider vCenter Configuration Manager to be one of the best options in the market.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We used to rely on traditional methods for managing edge management software, but now we utilize a virtual platform. We are using Window’s own patch management system based on the operating system. We would retrieve updates from the internet and evaluate which security patches are necessary for our servers. Only those patches deemed essential for server security are downloaded and applied.

vCenter is very easy to use if you have good skills. It takes a little time to configure everything. It is template-based, so you click, click, and then reboot. It takes 15 minutes.

The pricing and security could be improved.

I have been using vCenter Configuration Manager for over two years. We are using the older version of the solution.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is very easy. You have to stop the server, deploy the hardware, and hit the one reboot to stop the server. It will take every configuration over there. If you have primary and secondary servers, there will be zero downtime.

Around 1,000 users are using this solution.

We looked for Nutanix and vSphere because they are very scalable.

ROI depends on the load on the virtual platform.

Compared with our cloud, vCenter is very costly.

If any impact happens, then identification of the errors should be very easy.

Only two persons are required for the deployment: the maker, those deploying, and the takers taking parts. If you want it to deploy one team, one person is needed.

Since our world is moving towards the virtual platform, small organizations must explore the virtual world with its features. Whatever they are creating now on the virtual platform will be very helpful to the next generation. They can easily deploy virtual resources and migrate from virtual environments to the cloud. If a smaller organization wants to deploy without investing in cloud infrastructure, they should start with in-house applications on the virtual platform. Later, when they are ready to transition to the cloud, their virtual platform can be seamlessly converted to cloud technologies, facilitating a smooth migration process within a limited timeframe.

If you don't want to spend too much on renewals or have many servers and encounter build-level issues, You wouldn't want to overspend on human resources, power consumption, and hardware. In such cases, opting for the cloud is a viable solution as it eliminates the need for physical resources like hardware, power consumption, ISP, and server rooms. All you need is a network room.

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

I use the solution for the management of virtual servers.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact it is one of the top products that every company has used for the past five to ten years, but some might have moved to the cloud. But so far, many companies still run the product in their environment. In general, vCenter Configuration Manager is a leading virtualization product in the market.

The product's high price is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have a couple of years of experience with vCenter Configuration Manager.

It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

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

The whole organization, consisting of around 1,000 employees, uses the tool.

The tool is used in production in our company, so everyone uses it daily.

My company doesn't have a support contract with VMware.

The product's initial setup phase was very straightforward since it has been in the market for more than ten years.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I am a certified VMware engineer overseeing the product's setup phase.

It is an expensive solution. My company needs to make payments to acquire a perpetual license. There are no additional costs apart from the standard licensing charges attached to the solution.

Speaking about how the tool streamlines our company's integration compliance and patch management processes, I would say that my company uses the manual way to update patches.

My company doesn't use vCenter Configuration Manager automation tasks to increase our team's efficiency. The toll is purely used for virtualization purposes, to run our company's servers, and as a source of appliance for the VM backup.

I wouldn't recommend the solution to others since we live in a time period when everyone is moving from on-premises tools to cloud-based solutions.

As a fully compliant tool, vCenter Configuration Manager has helped with compliance audits or remediation. If there is any patching my company needs to deal with, we always follow VMware's guidelines.

My company has not integrated vCenter Configuration Manager with other VMware solutions.

Nowadays, every organization has been moving to the cloud, which is either Azure, AWS, or Google Cloud. I am not sure about VMware solutions for other people, but in our company's environment, once we migrate everything to the cloud, certain VMware products won't be needed anymore.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We are using many virtual machines on vCenter Configuration Manager.

vCenter Configuration Manager is a stable solution that is very easy to manage and deploy.

The solution's pricing is very high and could be improved.

I have been using vCenter Configuration Manager for ten years.

vCenter Configuration Manager is a very stable solution.

vCenter Configuration Manager is a scalable solution. Around 15 to 20 users are using the solution in our organization.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

The solution is easy to deploy. There are some difficulties in the update process. When the solution updates our servers, it updates all the drivers to the latest version. When we look at the VMware compatibility matrix, we don't see them on the matrix, which is a problem.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. The solution's deployment involves setting up files and servers.

We have seen a return on investment with vCenter Configuration Manager because the number of physical servers has decreased, and approximately all our servers are now virtual.

Users need to pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution, which is expensive.

I would recommend vCenter Configuration Manager to other users. While updating, users must check the drivers from the VMware compatibility matrix.

Overall, I rate vCenter Configuration Manager a nine out of ten.

I use it for configuring systems in the food industry.

It's challenging to pinpoint the single most valuable feature since there are several that I find highly important and interesting. I particularly appreciate the reporting capabilities, as they allow for in-depth analysis of logs and the ability to interpret alerts effectively, enabling informed responses.

The primary global issue that I've encountered during my many years working in IT, both in basic implementations and operator-level tasks, is a universal challenge and it evolves around the user interface, or more precisely, the lack of user-friendliness in IT systems. The speed at which technology evolves, new categories emerge, and customer expectations, especially in cybersecurity, are exceptionally high. Many major industry players like VMware, Microsoft, and Oracle often fall short in software coding and the smooth release of new versions. The second significant challenge relates to automation features and reports. These elements should be more consolidated and should transition from text-based to graphical representations to make them more understandable for decision-makers and eliminate the need for administrators to scour the internet for best practices and knowledge.

I have been working with it for twelve years.

It offers exceptional stability capabilities. I would rate it ten out of ten.

It's highly scalable, and I would rate it ten out of ten in that regard. It is suitable for organizations with well over a thousand employees, which qualifies as a large-scale deployment.

The initial setup was a relatively smooth process, and I'm generally satisfied with it. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The basic deployment typically takes around two days, and after making necessary adjustments and some minor modifications, it extends to about a week.

While the pricing is reasonable for large corporations, it presents a substantial financial challenge for medium-sized businesses. This high cost can deter smaller enterprises from acquiring the product, even if they are interested in it. I would rate it five out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.