VMware Aria Automation Reviews

Our primary use case is for our QA department. They use it to deploy machines when they need to test something out. It has performed well. They are able to spin up a new instance of Windows virtual machine and test whatever use case they have, then turn it back down whenever they are done. 

The infrastructure has helped us to greatly increase our agility.

The most valuable feature is that I do not have to create a virtual machine for these people and have them do a small task with it, then dispose of it. 

I find the solution to be intuitive and user-friendly for the end user. For the administrator, it can be a little challenging. For the administrator, there are a lot of moving parts. It is fine once you figure out where the knobs are you need to twiddle, but it can be a challenge to get it up and running.

There are a lot of moving parts. It could be improved if the solution were more consolidated.

The stability is good.

The scalability is fine when you go with the high availability deployment.

I have had to use tech support, and they are really good. 

I was not involved in the initial setup. I was involved in the upgrade, which was fine with support.

I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten. It has been extremely useful for our end users. To administer, it has been a bit more difficult.

We use it for server deployments, typically. It's mostly for managing our own private cloud, for infrastructure-as-a-service deployments. It has performed well. We just recently went through an upgrade that had some hiccups to it, but it's been performing well for us.

It allows us to deploy servers on a much faster basis. Instead of deploying a VM from a template and going through the process of configuring that VM, with vRA we're able to click once and it does everything: grabs an IP, joins it to the domain, loads whatever configuration agents are needed. It does all of that without manual intervention.

It has definitely improved the speed of provisioning over the old-school way of deploying a VM from a template.

Ease of use, the GUI, is probably the best feature, so that really anybody can use it. You don't have to be technical to be able to deploy a VM.

I find it to be intuitive and user-friendly. Regarding some of the files that you feed it, you don't have to do a ton of development. You can feed it pretty standard configuration files. You don't have to be a developer, you don't have to know C# or Java or the like to get it going.

An improvement - and maybe this is already a feature that I don't know about - would be to be able to deploy to public cloud. Deployments to the public cloud would probably be a good feature if it's not already there, to be able to deploy to AWS or Azure, etc.

My impression of its stability is "middle of the road." We've had some issues where it seems to be a little bit sensitive, where deployments fail and we don't really know a specific reason why. We'll dig through logs and try to figure out what's going on, but it's not always apparent why it failed. And you can kick it off again and it'll succeed. So stability could be better.

The scalability is okay. You can't, to my knowledge - and I could be wrong - tell it to deploy like this: "I want 20 VMs all configured this way," and have it go ahead and spin them off. You have to do them one at a time. So, from a scalability standpoint that's not great, but it could also be that we're just not using it correctly. We don't actually have the need to do that very often, but from time to time we'll get a request such as, "We need five SQL Server VMs." It would be nice to be able to do it once and be done with it, rather than repeat that process five times.

To my knowledge, I don't think there was a previous solution.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup but we just went through an upgrade. It was not without its challenges. Some of the challenges were probably on our side, being able to support the newer infrastructure. But I seem to recall there being some issues importing some of the old settings and from vRA 6 into vRA 7 so that you could destroy VMs that were built in 6 from within the 7 UI. There were some challenges in getting that done. It's done, but I believe that there were some speed bumps to that.

I rate vRA at seven out of ten. There's some room for improvement, but it's better than the old way that we used to do things. It's a good product, it could just use some ironing out.

The most important criterion when selecting a vendor, to my mind, is support: a support network, whether it be knowledgebase articles online, forums online, or calling into actual, paid support.

Everything that takes away from my having to do my own tasks is a very big plus. With Automation and a lot of the components we are looking at right now, I will be able to template everything out and streamline the process, which is going to save me a lot of time. My main focus is COOP sites and disaster recovery, so automating those makes my job easy.

It decreases a lot of manual labor involved in the initial deployment of systems. Instead of my having to go deploy a template and join it to the domain and add software to it, all that is pre-staged once and never done again.

It has also increased the infrastructure agility a lot. A perfect example is that I use Veeam Backup, so I deploy additional proxies whenever our network changes. I don't have to go out and sign in to the vSphere host because I have a different location. I can add additional resources from one location to my disaster recovery management console.

I find the system to be intuitive and user-friendly. In general, I'm quite happy with the entire setup. Once you configure the system, navigating the portal is pretty simple. They use a lot of the vSphere UI interface structure so it's intuitive, especially if you have used anything vSphere-related before.

I don't know if it can integrate with vRealize or vROps in order to already manage what has been done. Right now I'm very big into vROps to pull reports on all my VMs. I don't know if that capability is there already, but if I could integrate it more, if they went hand-in-hand, it would be easy. Not only could I deploy everything in one place, but I could go to another place just to pull my reports on what has been done.

I'm happy so far, I haven't had any stability issues.

I'm extremely happy with the scalability.

I have used technical support, but not for vRA. I used it to help with reverse-engineering my vSphere vCSA because it completely crashed and both sectors were corrupted and I needed to get it back. They were helpful.

We didn't have a solution that does exactly the same. For other systems, we use Chef, but I know that that is more for the application side of things. We haven't used anything like this.

What's important when looking for a vendor, for me, is that they take their time to actually see what we have and what we are trying to do, before pushing an agenda. If they could see what we have and create a design out of that, before suggesting anything else, that would make me want to work with that vendor more because then I would know that they are not pushing something, that they are giving me what is better for me.

Once I understood what it was trying to do, and what it was requesting of me, it was simple. But originally, it took me by surprise. I was not used to the setup yet. One of my main issues was having multiple SSL domains. It took me a while to see how those play a part.

Make sure that you know what your infrastructure looks like before you start.

I rate this solution at eight out of ten, with potential to grow. I still have to learn a lot more about it. Once I learn some of the additional features and add-ons that  I can implement, I think it will increase.

• We use it for our own private hosting. 
• We do services for departments within the State of California. 
• We have a large agency where we design and deploy an automation solution around vRealize Automation.

It's done most of what we needed for our customers. However, custom integration had to be done with certain things which are not exotic.

I would like to see more out-of-the-box blueprints and workflows for the rest of VMware's products and its portfolio.

We would like them to continuously improve the product with upgrades, as they have been.

The product is stable. When we used it early on, the changes were so rapid that we had to be careful with versioning. We probably still have to be pretty careful between versioning. The environment includes NSX, as well as vRA. Therefore, we have to pay attention to making sure everything is compatible.

Scalability hasn't been a problem. For the agency where we have it deployed, there are 4500 to 5000 VMs.

The first version that we deployed was not long after VMware had acquired the product. This was with version 6 or 6.2 for a production deployment. There was a lot of work to do with certificates, etc. However, the setup is getting better with each version. 

If you do a deployment for a proof of concept, it is simple. When you start to do a deployment where you need higher availability and more resiliency, then the complexity goes up drastically.

From the customer perspective, the value was worth it.

Be particular about requirements and what your goals are with the customer. There is a lot more to this product than doing a deployment, so make sure you understand the use cases.

• Automation
• Catalog
• Blueprints

Probably more stability and just ensuring everything works out-of-the-box.

There is still a bit of a gap in terms of product maturity based on all the forums and things that we've seen, so we would like it to be much more mature than what we currently have.

There's some issues that we've encountered while standing it up.

As of now, it seems like it does scale. However, we haven't hit the point where we are deploying in a large scale.

So far, we haven't had too many issues reaching out to tech support.

It's fairly complex. The documentation continuously evolves and the product seems to change every couple months. It's trying to piece together different forums and documentations to figure out how to get a working solution.

Most important criteria for selecting a vendor: Brand recognition, but also VMware being the biggest. We thought that might be the best route in terms of support and community.

Self-service and automation. They reduce the amount of time to build a virtual machine and reduce the operation costs.

The requesters create their own virtual machines now, instead of a series of tickets to get things built.

We're still running version 6. When we upgrade to version 7, a lot of our issues should be addressed already. Things like some of the flexibility, and some of the ease of automation.

It's very stable.

It's extremely scalable.

Since we moved to Business Critical Support, it's been very good. I always reach the right person.

We needed a self-provisioning front end. So, this was the best option.

Complex. We deployed the original version of vCAC and there wasn't a lot of documentation at the time. There are a lot of disparate parts that have to be deployed on multiple machines that involve a bunch of load bouncers. Issues like that.

We purchased PSO resources.

Licensing's expensive.

VM was the only one we really looked at.

The most important criteria when looking at various vendors are reliability, their position within the industry, and the ability to get references from existing customers.

Do a lot of planning upfront because some of the choices you make, when you initially deploy, you'll have to live with in the end. Sizing is the main one.

I would suggest hiring a PSO.

The most valuable features are:

• Seeing how the actual servers are responding
• CPU times
• Memory times.

This allows us more scalability in terms of different applications in using specific servers.

Resource management. That's the biggest thing. We're not scaling solutions too much larger than what they actually should be. We can actually take back a lot of the memory with some of the solutions that we're not necessarily using overall. This kind of management is probably the most beneficial.

There is some performance lag, but that could be on our end.

Great. I haven't noticed anything.

I would say great. For different solutions, it allows us to scale.

I haven't. My company has though. I haven't heard anything negative with it. It's all been positive.

We were not using something else, but internally we were overscaling a lot of different solutions and we were getting criticism from upper-level management.

I was not involved.

Look into it heavily when researching similar products, especially if you're looking in terms of budgetary issues with different servers or how you're gonna scale something. It allows you to have pretty concrete data to show to your management.

I wasn't a part of the decision-making process. I know VMware was one of the top choices.

Make sure, and this solution does this, it touches on everything you want to see in a solution in terms of CPU memory. This is such an all-encompassing solution.

Someone that's willing to be a good partner with us. Someone who's responsive, and who when they set us up, or when we enter a partnership, they don't just disappear afterward.

Probably the extensibility as well as the out-of-the-box features it provides, which allow you to be very creative with things you can add on and customise. The extensibility is the most important part for me.

The extensibility allows you to take custom or proprietary requirements and make them happen. Where there's a lot of products, it will give you a set number of used cases, and if you have something that's outside of those, then it can be difficult to make that happen, but the vRealize Automation product allows you to just extend beyond what we'd initially expect them to be used for and make your own custom scripts that can be executed as well as the things that come out-of-the-box.

Yes, certainly. The ability to manage the product in code; so infrastructure is code. It certainly has improved in the last version, but it still isn't quite at the level that some of its competition is in. It's not infrastructure is called native, overlooks is getting closer to it, so that's probably the biggest single improvement to suggest.

About two years now.

Yeah, there are some issues with stability. I suppose with any product, when new versions come out sometimes there are bugs, and depending how wide-spread that is, it can take a varying length of time to clean a patch from a big crash or fault. I give it a seven out of 10 for stability. There are issues, but it's not dreadful. It is certainly better than it was in previous versions.

No, it's very scalable. It's fairly easy to add the numbers of servers to allow it to scale up. As I've said, we've seen it running hundreds of concurrent deployments with the right design and the right number of devices. Obviously, while supporting the platform, it's very scalable.

It's probably a difficult question to answer. Depending on the type of relationship you have with them, I've looked at a couple of places. One company had business critical support. They were very quite good at certifying specialists, they were almost always able to at least categorise a problem, if not fix it in the first sort of hour or two. If you don't have that level of support, you often go through a couple of levels of help desk first and that can be quite frustrating and quite difficult. So I think the level of support maybe averages out to a six out of 10, but it could be eight or nine if they got the right.

Previously, I worked in a team which tried a proprietary tool that did a very similar job, and the main reason for going a product like vRA, is that the development cost of it is handled by another company, so they'll maintain that, and we develop and maintain their own code base instead of paying for support from a larger organization. The idea is when you reach a certain scale, paying someone whose job it is or specialty it is to do this kind of work, they'll have a small team doing it, then having the rest of the people on that team might move on. I suppose to operate it into a prize scale was one of the main reasons for switching.

The installation has been greatly improved in the latest version. There's now a lesser based installation, which has made it many times easier. It is still something that requires a bit of knowledge and time (if you've never used the product before). It is probably going to take you a week or so to get familiar with the concept and try the installation maybe one or two times before it works for you. Once you've used it a few times, you can probably do an installation in a day or two. So maybe a seven out of 10, for ease of installation.

No, I've never been involved in the selection of this product, but I've actually joined teams that have already chosen to use it. I know some of the competition. Some of the other products have on from being the VMware vCloud Director. Some of the products are heard suggested via other places, like answerable and telethon.

Probably the decision to run a private cloud, such as VMware, versus running things in someplace like the public cloud and it being AWS. The main thing is about the scale, and getting sufficient scale, it can be cost effective to run your own private cloud. Best to find the right algorithms, if not setting up the hardware themselves; but you probably do need to reach that multi-million pound scale to make that the right decision. Smaller players are probably better off thinking about comparing costs without a cloud provider, and maybe a less niche product.

It's a good product. It's very extensible. It is fairly complex to set-up, and its fairly closely tied to VMware's infrastructure, so there's a lack of portability to public clouds and a lack of ability to manage infrastructure is code natively. Although it can be persuaded to do it, it's not always straightforward. Those are probably the biggest downfalls.