VMware Cloud Foundation Reviews

Regarding my experience with application migration between on-premises and public clouds using VMware Cloud Foundation, I have used it for storage deployment.

VMware Cloud Foundation can be used in either private or public environments, and its organization allows you to combine everything in the storage together with combined computer storage, network, visualization, management, and integrated stack, which makes it easier to run everything together. This is especially notable in the storage section.

The automation capabilities of VMware Cloud Foundation demonstrate excellent performance because of the private cloud automation, where you can develop things and manage the software into the data section, which is the SDDC. It allows the organization to modernize their infrastructure and accelerate application delivery together with the support for both virtual machine and container.

Regarding the impact of integrated security on data protection strategy, the product and management data varies in different ways, including collecting performance and configuration data, which enables monitoring of your product and platform to modernize the application. This includes handling data at rest and in motion to ensure data protection when disasters occur. This is achieved through gathering data at different intervals, ideally every five minutes, enabling recovery between VM and platform when something affects your data.

In VMware Cloud Foundation, areas that have room for improvement include the experience between VMware Cloud Foundation and the cloud. I prefer working with the cloud due to my study with the architecture side of it, as I can handle and migrate between the platforms.

An improvement needed is an upgrade to make it more scalable and automated, so that it can be easier to navigate within the cloud and the Kubernetes and vSphere, enabling VMware Cloud Foundation to deliver a more scalable hybrid cloud and manage the lifecycle between the management and Kubernetes section.

I have been using VMware Cloud Foundation for up to five years now, starting when I was working in the IT department as an IT admin. From there, I studied further to complete my AWS architecture certification, and I've been using it for work from home as for further study, even up to the present when I transitioned into cybersecurity.

For stability, I rate it eight out of ten.

Regarding scalability, since I mentioned that it has room for improvement, I would rate it nine out of ten.

The technical support from VMware Cloud Foundation deserves a nine out of ten rating.

Positive

The deployment of VMware Cloud Foundation is not complex; it depends on the knowledge and years of experience you have. If it's something you deal with every day, you become accustomed to it.

It takes hours to deploy, depending on the capacity and the workload.

The return on investment I have seen is between 10 to 15 percent.

The price for VMware Cloud Foundation is not cheap, as the market is competitive with AWS cloud. When comparing prices of both clouds, AWS is cheaper because they offer a free section for practice. After it expires, payment is required. The cloud market for storage has significant competition.

The number of users of VMware Cloud Foundation depends on the organization size, what they want to deploy, and what they have produced and want to process. It varies by organization.

The organization I work with currently has about 18 members spread across two departments, with my section consisting of between six or seven people, apart from the manager.

I rate VMware Cloud Foundation nine out of ten.

The main use cases for VMware Cloud Foundation are that it combines VMware and Azure, Windows, and all things at the cloud level. Azure is one of the applications I am using. Some Azure levels also direct Windows servers, as some Windows servers I have moved from VMware to Azure. The Azure portal operates at different levels.

I am using Azure 109, 019 as a fundamental level for on-premises infrastructure, PSS, IAS, and other Azure foundation components.

I utilize the workload portability feature in VMware Cloud Foundation, and the workload balance is effective. For example, in one cluster level, there are four to five ESXi hosts. Each ESXi host has minimum resources including CPU and memory allocations. At the VMware Cloud Foundation level, utilization is considerably lower.

The deployment model of VMware Cloud Foundation is implemented through one tool, though I cannot recall its exact name. Currently, my environment uses that tool to move applications from VMware to Azure.

Previously, with an old version of ESXi host, I encountered network communication issues and servers would sometimes become unresponsive. Two months ago, I upgraded the hardware level firmware first. After the firmware hardware level upgrade, I moved to the software level and migrated from essential to cloud migration, upgrading from 7.0 to 8.0. Subsequently, I completed the ESXi host upgrade. Now the system is stable and many issues have been resolved.

Based on my experience, I would recommend VMware Cloud Foundation because it is a stable advanced version in a good position. There is support from Nutanix nowadays, and the Broadcom team can easily identify cloud level issues. Support for old versions has almost ended, with licensing for old version servers expected to expire in September this year, prompting many users to migrate to the new version.

VMware Cloud Foundation's best features include its advanced capabilities, security purposes, and performance levels. The solution offers efficient licensing options. Previously, vSphere essential was available, but now it has moved to VMware Cloud Foundation 8.0. It includes advanced features such as lifecycle manager, patching level, and cluster level patching options.

The solution now offers auto-deployment of VMs. Previously, I had to use the content library, right-click, and create VMs manually. With VMware Cloud Foundation, auto-deployment is possible by simply right-clicking and assigning a specific DHCP IP, enabling physical to vCenter level communication for automatic VM deployment.

The workload portability feature in VMware Cloud Foundation provides good workload balance. For instance, in a cluster level with four to five ESXi hosts, each host has minimum resources allocated for CPU and memory, resulting in significantly reduced utilization at the VMware Cloud Foundation level.

Regarding improvements in VMware Cloud Foundation, stability has significantly improved, and many issues have been resolved. The efficiency, stability, scalability, and advanced level features have been substantially implemented.

While there are areas I would like to see improved in future releases of VMware Cloud Foundation, I cannot specify them exactly.

Desired future features include direct monitoring capabilities in VMware Cloud Foundation, Skyview on VMware, NSX, vSAN, as well as UPI, API integration. Additional monitoring features such as Health Sky, Health Sky Lab, Health Sky P, and SimpliVity would be beneficial.

I have extensive knowledge regarding VMware Cloud Foundation spanning four to five years.

The migration to VMware Cloud Foundation was straightforward as I first established communication at the network level, migrated to VMware Cloud Foundation, and verified the network level communication, ensuring stability throughout the process. After confirming stability, I proceeded with the cloud migration.

I am currently satisfied with the stability of VMware Cloud Foundation, though having started only two to three months ago, I am still in the monitoring phase. The end users need to confirm their satisfaction comparing VMware to Azure, and if no problems arise, that would be positive.

I find VMware Cloud Foundation to be scalable, offering enhanced performance across all aspects.

Based on my nine years of experience with VMware, I would evaluate their technical support as effective. I handle the operations part, including infrastructure operations, upgrades, and everything. While architecture levels are managed by my senior manager, I coordinate with the Broadcom team for operations, infrastructure, upgrades, patches, and hardware/software level issues, resolving every issue in advance.

Positive

I have basic knowledge of the Nutanix Kubernetes platform and hands-on experience with Nutanix. I am familiar with Nutanix's Prism Central, Prism Element, and Prism Self, including firmware upgrades, hardware upgrades, version upgrades, and ISO upgrades.

My experience with the Kubernetes platform from Nutanix is limited to monitoring purposes from my previous company. I used it to track patching completion, generate reports through the Kubernetes portal, and monitor server utilizations and performance.

Desired future features include direct monitoring capabilities in VMware Cloud Foundation, Skyview on VMware, NSX, vSAN, as well as UPI, API integration. Additional monitoring features such as Health Sky, Health Sky Lab, Health Sky P, and SimpliVity would be beneficial.

The initial setup of VMware Cloud Foundation was straightforward, and I did not encounter any challenges during the implementation phase.

I cannot comment on whether VMware Cloud Foundation is cost-effective or provide information about return on investment.

Regarding pricing, VMware Cloud Foundation includes normal licensing costs. Since VMware's move to Broadcom, the pricing has increased significantly. Compared to Nutanix, which many people consider a better option due to its single platform approach, VMware Cloud Foundation operates on different platforms. VMware involves separate teams for Broadcom, HP hardware, Cisco networking switches, and pure storage. Nutanix, however, provides all components including storage, network, and the Acropolis operating system in a single platform.

Comparing VMware to Azure and Nutanix, Nutanix demonstrates greater efficiency and performance levels. Issue identification is easier with Nutanix. For example, when a node or host is down, finding the source of the problem is simpler. With VMware, the troubleshooting process is more complex, requiring checks of software level communication between ESXi host and vCenter server, or hardware level issues such as memory DIMM failures. Nutanix offers increased stability compared to VMware.

VMware's main benefits include easier management of file servers, SQL servers, and print servers. While Nutanix also offers these capabilities, VMware makes it easier to identify issues with printer and file servers, depending on the location and standalone host configuration.

Regarding the flexibility to choose between cloud and on-premises deployment models, I can only speak to my hands-on experience rather than provide a detailed explanation.

I cannot comment on how the consistent architecture of VMware Cloud Foundation has impacted our organization's ability to run traditional and cloud native applications, as architecture is handled by a separate team.

The main benefits of using VMware Cloud Foundation include significantly improved performance and stability. Previously, with an old version of ESXi host, we faced network communication issues and server responsiveness problems. After upgrading the hardware level firmware two months ago, followed by software migration from 7.0 to 8.0 and ESXi host upgrades, the system has become stable with numerous issues resolved.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate VMware Cloud Foundation a 6 out of 10.

The primary use case for VMware Cloud Foundation is its ease of use and centralized management. All operations go through Cloud Foundation tools, which offer easy management.

A valuable feature of VMware Cloud Foundation is its ability to manage everything from a single console, including network, virtualization, and storage management. It is easy to manage and facilitates centralized management through Cloud Foundation tools.

There is room for improvement in how section updates are handled. The challenge lies in the difficulty of pinpointing issues when something goes wrong at a single stage. Also, each user needs deep knowledge of every aspect of virtualization, and the VMware personnel might not fully grasp aspects outside their expertise, requiring the involvement of other professionals.

I have been using VMware Cloud Foundation for almost two and a half years.

I give it an eight for stability. If one component fails to operate in a timely manner, the entire infrastructure can go down because everything is interconnected. This is the biggest issue.

VMware Cloud Foundation is quite scalable, receiving a rating of eight and a half to nine out of ten.

I rate VMware's tech support at seven and a half. There are times when support is unclear, and even VMware support personnel may lack familiarity with certain parts, causing difficulties.

The initial setup is not quite difficult. One person can handle it.

In terms of ROI, although VMware Cloud Foundation is expensive, it saves time in most cases, which indirectly saves costs for users.

VMware Cloud Foundation is quite expensive when compared to its competitors, but it does save time, which in turn saves money. I see over thirty percent savings.

I rate my overall experience with VMware Cloud Foundation as eight. I would like to explore more AI-related features, particularly in automation. My overall rating for the solution is an eight out of ten.

The main use case for VMware Cloud Foundation is to create a scalable solution that allows for customization to align with our customer requirements. I have been using it to address various challenges in deploying customizable service catalogs and blueprints. I primarily use it for private cloud on-premises infrastructure.

VMware Cloud Foundation allows for extensive customization, aligning with our customer requirements. It provides a self-service portal akin to those in Google Cloud or Amazon Cloud, enabling requests for virtual machines and other resources within minutes. Additionally, it integrates with various services like Active Directory, DNS, backup, and ITSM Remedy.

Customization is a major challenge, particularly when involving VMware's center of excellence teams, which can be costly. The maintenance cost has increased significantly, especially after Broadcom acquired VMware, with a shift from socket-based licensing to core-based licensing.

I have been working with VMware Cloud Foundation since 2019.

VMware Cloud Foundation supports scalability and company growth. However, the current licensing model restricts scalability with vendor locking and changes due to the acquisition by Broadcom.

Support was reliable and responsive before the acquisition by Broadcom. After that, I am unsure of the current support situation.

Neutral

I evaluated solutions from Huawei and Red Hat but chose VMware mainly due to its feature set, which was more comprehensive.

The initial hardware setup is straightforward. However, adding the center of excellence team for additional customization escalates the cost significantly, taking up to 70% of the project's cost.

The professional services team from VMware undertakes a significant portion of any project, making up about 60 to 70% of the involvement.

VMware Cloud Foundation allows cost and time savings by quickly deploying infrastructure requests and integrating automatic ticketing and backup services.

The cost has become very high, especially after Broadcom's acquisition, altering the licensing model to a more expensive core-based system.

I evaluated Huawei and Red Hat solutions but ultimately chose VMware Cloud Foundation due to its superior features.

Overall, I would rate VMware Cloud Foundation between six to seven out of ten due to the balance between its functionalities and high costs. It is more inclined towards a seven for solution quality but closer to a six when factoring in the cost. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

Positive

I use the solution in my company for our own public and private clouds. We have created our cloud services using these products.

It is a good product, and it actually meets most of the requirements that our company has in terms of creating a cloud, and so that is why we are using it.

The tool's UI is great. I think it is easy to deploy the tool. As we have a user support base, I think it is a good product for our company.

The tool's integration capabilities are slightly complicated, so we use our company's SI partners. Integrations are slightly difficult, as getting resources to deal with it is not that easy.

I think the tool's integration features with multiple products are still slightly cumbersome. As VMware has a large stack of tools. At times, we find there are issues because the tools under VMware don't work with each other. In general, I think it is a good product.

I have been using VMware Cloud Foundation for seven to eight years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a highly scalable solution.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

The solution can be deployed in one to two days.

A few people need to install the tool as VMware has multiple products.

The savings have been about 30 to 40 percent using the tool.

The tool's price is slightly on the higher side, but I guess you think there is no one-to-one comparison with other tools. The licensing part has become easier, while earlier, it was quite complex.

Maintenance is good because our company uses support services from VMware. To maintain the tool, we have a big team as we have it across 14 countries. We have around 50 to 60 people supporting the tool in our company.

In our company, we are not using the AI part of the tool, but there is vROps in the solution.

The tool is highly scalable, so the tool helps us grow. The scalability helps our company keep up pace with the way we are growing.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

We are using VMware Cloud Foundation for virtualization within our on-premises infrastructure. We utilize it primarily for management through vSphere, vCenter, and vMotion, and it fits our current setup since we are not using a hybrid cloud environment.

We use VMware Cloud Foundation mainly for the virtualization part, and because it's a suite where everything is combined, we have vSphere and vCenter. Ever since they changed the license model, after the acquisition by Broadcom, it has become just VCF now. The number of tickets has gone down since the product is much more stable. This improved stability is helping us in a significant way.

All virtualization features are there, and they release periodic patches and updates. There is not much I would suggest for improvement. We are almost there in terms of meeting our needs.

We have been working with VMware Cloud Foundation for the last three years.

I would give VMware Cloud Foundation a stability rating of nine out of ten. The product is stable, which has reduced our ticket volume.

Scalability is easy. Adding VXL nodes is straightforward, and I would rate it a nine out of ten regarding scalability.

The technical support from VMware is good. We didn't encounter any problems with their support team.

Positive

Prior to VMware Cloud Foundation, we used VMware in its older version and Hyper-V from Microsoft. We switched because VMware support is better.

The initial setup was straightforward since our team was already experienced with VMware.

Our internal team handled the migration and setup. We migrated close to about a thousand VMs to the VXL boxes. It took us about six months, considering we had to manage production downtimes.

We haven't calculated the ROI, but we've noticed that the number of tickets has decreased, indicating an improvement in stability.

After the acquisition, prices have been going up, however, we find the product quite good. The licensing model changed after the Broadcom acquisition. Lower prices are good for end users, however, we are okay with the current pricing.

As a national utility company, we would like to stick to VMware since we're happy with it and other options don't suit our needs better.

I would recommend VMware Cloud Foundation to any organization seeking virtualization. I would rate it a nine overall. Although all necessary virtualization features are present, and they provide periodic updates, I'm satisfied with its current capabilities.

The primary use case for VMware Cloud Foundation is to meet our requirements for host-level redundancy on both the primary site and the DR site. We were already using VMware on our old infrastructure and upgraded to new compute and solutions.

All features of VMware Cloud Foundation are valuable to us, as it covers every industry standard protocol and requirement protocol, and it assists in meeting our requirements for host-level redundancy on both the primary site and the DR site.

There may be room for improvement in the resource allocation feature. VMware Broadcom needs to include auto resource allocation at the VM levels.

We have been working with this solution for the last one and a half years.

The stability of VMware Cloud Foundation is very high. I would rate it ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of this solution as eight out of ten. When more hosts are added, performance goes slow. It will work best with a limited number of hosts.

Our technical support team is capable of providing support on the operating system side. I would recommend it as nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was a little bit difficult for us, however, now we are able to complete the whole solution without any hurdles.

The price is quite higher than some other vendors, however, it is a reliable solution. VMware is a pioneer in the virtualization field, and that is why we rely on VMware.

I would recommend VMware Cloud Foundation to others. I would rate the overall solution nine out of ten.

We use the solution for our infrastructure enterprise. We build networking, storage, and security using VMware Cloud Foundation. We also use the solution for our production.

The solution's most valuable features are automated provisioning, network, and storage. It is also easy to use.

The solution's log management could be improved because the logs don't provide enough information. The solution's reporting should not be simple, but it should have more customization options.

I have been using VMware Cloud Foundation for seven years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

VMware Cloud Foundation is a scalable solution. Around 20 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We use the solution's third-party support vendor. The quality of the support has to be better.

Neutral

I have previously worked with Nutanix. VMware Cloud Foundation provides better features, customer service, technical support, and easy integration compared to other products.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

The solution’s pricing could be improved and made more flexible.

VMware Cloud Foundation did not integrate smoothly with our networking and security functions, but it runs fine. The solution's automation feature allows us to increase the server's cloud scaling capabilities without having to define them one by one because it is done automatically. I would recommend the solution to other users.

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

We're just looking to set up a private cloud.

In our case, we don't use this extensively. The system belongs to a third party, so we have limited insight into the different ways they merge platforms and implement functionalities. We primarily purchase and pay for the license while the third party manages and maintains the platform. They integrate various functionalities into their management plane, likely using different tools.

We have little control over the tools they use to manage and control the platform. I've used VMware elsewhere and found it to be quite good, but in this instance, we have no say in their tool choices. The only thing they provide is the service we request.

We are the owners of the platform, but a third-party company is responsible for its support. They support the platform with their own tools, not VMware's. The only thing they have to do with VMware tools is purchase anything we request. We could request a task to be done, and they'll do it for us. 

If we recommend any areas where the platform isn't working, they have to use Huawei tools. We have no say over their use of vRealize Operations Manager or other VMware management tools. The virtual platform belongs to us. We pay for the license and everything else, but we have no control over how it's managed.

We are not really happy because we found that they don't use the full functionality of VMware. We paid for licenses for some solutions, like vRealize Operations Manager, but they don't use it. It's a waste of money.

I've worked in other companies where they provide that setup for different clients. So, we have set up private cloud solutions to provide workbooks for different clients. That's very good because you can keep them separate. 

You have one workbook for one client, another workbook for another client, and then the tools in your management area control everything. And everything's optimized. So that is very good with VMware.

The main features are the separation between the management plane and the workload. You can use NSX to provision between the different areas of the network, like west-east or north-south. We use the vSAN platform too. 

Another benefit is that we can implement so many VMs in physical servers and control them with the different functionalities that VMware has, like NSX.

The main thing is the license. We are a little worried about the changes around licensing at the moment, so we are mainly looking at other platforms.

We don't like the way VMware charges for licenses since they were bought by Broadcom. There's always something to worry about with VMware. They tend to change their license from product to product. When they started years ago, they started with a bundle, and then the bundle was not enough. We had to buy more licenses because the bundle of vSphere was not good. 

As we went to standard, it worked well to provide different options and functionalities, but then we had to purchase additional licenses. It has always been unclear about our licenses. The confrontation they have with Microsoft is not helpful. They need to source servers, and that's the big issue.

Another area of improvement:

Maybe the network one, the NSX. VMware changed it to NSX-T, so it's improved, and we are in the process of migrating. Maybe the migration between old systems to new ones could be a little smoother. 

And the support provided by VMware is not very good.

The quality of VMware support. We're doing the migration from NSX-V to NSX-T, and we requested VMware consultants on-site, but the communication is not very good. We've been doing this for over six months, and they don't help us a lot with the migration. They're supposed to be the experts, but the commands they give us to try don't always work. We try something else, and it lowers the performance of the business systems. We've done the migration for a testing environment, but now we have to run the solution in production. It took too long to bring the right people on board.

We've been asking them repeatedly to give us help with the migration, and they eventually brought somebody in who was good. Things are good now that we found the right person, but they're very disjointed. When we try to learn it ourselves, it doesn't always work with these people.

I have been using it for two years, but I have been working with the VMware platform for the last fifteen years.

It is very stable. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. There are more than a thousand end users using it. 

There is room for improvement in customer service and support. For the money we spend, we want providers with qualified engineers who know what they're doing for the entire operation, the projects, and the migration.

Negative

From my previous experience with VMware, it's quite fast.

The only complex area is the network, NSX. The new version, NSX-T, is a little better, but the old one was very complex for me. Well, it worked, but it was complex. However, it doesn't take long to deploy. 

I'm an architect, so we don't deal with the deployment area directly. We just do the designs, and then the engineers implement them.

It is quite expensive. 

If you have the money to spend, go ahead. But please, just be careful with their licenses. VMware's prices are expensive.

It should have been the virtualized platform, but that's the best thing.

Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten.