VMware NSX Reviews

The solution is mainly used for rolling virtual environments and private clouds. I use the product for my company and for other customers.

It's important to have whenever I need to segment or control the traffic from virtual machine to virtual machine. This was not the case without the NSX.

NSX is good in managing security or controlling the security and the access control for each single VM. 

It is essential and it can be useful up to a certain level of access control. That said, if we need further detailed or further security features, we should use another product like Palo Alto or Fortinet or other competitors.

It integrates with certain vendors like Palo Alto seamlessly.

The product is stable. 

We can scale the solution. 

It's just access controlled. It should be leveraged by adding more detailed, deep security products to facilitate the NXS. The security needs improvement. 

It's not feature-rich. It's not doing many tasks like a Next Generation Firewall such as Palo Alto for VM or other vendors like Fortinet for virtualized environments. 

It has to have the features from next-generation firewalls, and it needs to complement other features, as in the unified security gateway, to be a good competitor against other solutions.

It does not integrate well with many platforms. 

I've been using the solution for a couple of years now. 

Stability is not an issue. It's not buggy. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is good. 

It is a scalable product. 

We have around 1000 or more people on the solution. Our customers use the solution. We do not use it internally. 

We didn't have experience with VMware technical support. Mainly, the issues we need are covered via assistance from Palo Alto. I've never directly communicated with VMware support. 

We didn't use any solution for the virtualized environment.

That said, for other solutions in the market that have the same feature, we have experience. This includes Juniper, Cisco, and Palo Alto. These all have next-generation firewall features, which have been standard for 20 years now.

It's intermediate in terms of ease of setup. It is not so straightforward, and it's not also complex.

 It integrates with certain vendors like Palo Alto very well. That said, other vendors, like Fortinet or others, do not have the same level of integration.

I'd rate the process a there out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

The deployment took three weeks the first time we did it. The strategy is mainly segmenting between operational virtual machines which have, for example, the database and the application front end on the same VLAN. If I need to segment this traffic, it wouldn't be possible without NSX.

We have two people that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. We need someone who understands the schema of the solution itself, the software itself, the front end and the database, and so on. Then, we also need one person from the security team.

We had a consultation and fielded recommendations from a Palo Alto engineer.

From a security point of view, the ROI you would see would be based on making things secure. The risk is at the lowest possible levels. However, the level of security that would be improved using this solution alone isn't so good. I'd rate the ROI a two out of five as it doesn't do much on its own. 

I'm not sure about licensing, as this is out of my scope as a technical engineer.

We did look into other options before choosing this solution. 

We are a partner. I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

It has good features for tagging and auto-tagging and so on. That said, without another complementary solution like Palo Alto or other micro-segmentation firewall vendors, it would not be of that much use. It needs the support of other software.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten. It lacks standard security features, which is why I rate it so low. 

We use VMware NSX for application service deployments.

VMware NSX is a very good solution. It's also a scalable solution.

It could be more user-friendly, but it's manageable. When we add a specific node to this particular NSX and the configuration changes, it won't push through the errors where required, but it'll accept it. However, while using it, we will have issues. It can also be more stable. 

It could be more stable.

VMware NSX is a scalable solution. We have about 10,000 people using it at our company.

Technical support is good.

We are still in the process of completing the migration from the physical servers to NSX.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, but it takes a long time to implement this solution. You need hundreds of people to deploy and maintain this solution.

VMware NSX isn't cheap. 

I would tell potential users that they need to do a high-level review of their entire data center architecture, and should not leave any specific configurations related to connectivity that would lead them to more challenges. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give VMware NSX a seven.

Our primary focus is to create a layer that effectively connects to the remote site. This involves optimizing and accelerating the VXLend component, which is highly popular in our setup. We usually configure VXLend to enhance disaster recovery capabilities, specifically for applications that operate within the same subnet. This approach ensures that in the event of a disaster, such as a WAN failure or when external layers are inaccessible, there's no need to change IP addresses. It allows users to connect seamlessly from any location since the servers maintain the same subnet, and data replication occurs between the data centers. The result is minimal disruption and no requirement to modify configurations during these critical scenarios.

Traditional network management often involves dealing with individual components separately while VMware NSX offers a more streamlined approach. It operates on a logical level, providing a comprehensive and centralized way to manage your network resources. This not only simplifies management but also enhances scalability. It enables us to create and adjust policies dynamically, allowing for real-time updates and enforcement so we can effectively oversee our entire data center from a single point of control.

One aspect that needs improvement is the need for further automation. We are already operating in a software-defined data center environment, and while the product is mature, there's room for enhancing automation.

I have been using it for approximately three years.

It provides robust stability features. I would rate it nine out of ten.

It provides excellent scalability capabilities. When it comes to micro-segmentation, it allows you to scale naturally. You can distribute firewall and load-balancing functionalities efficiently as your network grows. It also offers seamless integration with the physical network infrastructure, making it easy to extend your virtualized network into the physical world.

The customer support from VMware is exceptional. Recently we encountered a critical issue where one of our virtual machines failed to start and was displaying a blue screen. Despite the urgency of the situation, we logged a support case, and within twenty minutes, we received a response. A support representative promptly called us, established a remote connection, conducted a thorough analysis, and successfully resolved the problem.

Positive

I have experience with Cisco, but I find VMware to be a superior solution. The primary reason is the seamless integration that VMware offers, especially within a data center environment. When working within a data center, VMware's virtualization capabilities are all that we need. We no longer require separate hardware, edge products, load-balancing solutions, or firewall products. Everything can be fully integrated into a unified system and it allows us to accomplish everything from one console and one central point of control, making it a highly efficient and streamlined solution.

When it comes to VMware, there are two primary options: NSX-V and NSX-T. NSX-V is known for its user-friendliness and effectiveness. Setting up SD-WAN connectivity with NSX-V is straightforward.

The price is significantly high and it can be a hurdle for many potential users.

I would highly recommend VMware for a wide range of users, spanning from large enterprises to small and medium-sized businesses. It's an ideal choice for those who require disaster recovery solutions or cloud extensions. Its versatility and capabilities make it a valuable choice for anyone looking to scale their infrastructure, whether it's within a data center or by extending into the cloud. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We're moving towards hyper-converged solutions with VMware, including NSX and vSAN. This direction has promising prospects in the market.

One significant advantage of VMware NSX is the ability to provide advanced security at the micro-level, focusing on securing applications and workloads rather than just the network structure or virtualization-based network security.   

I believe we need to attain a certain level of maturity and work closely with multiple customers to make substantial improvements and achieve notable results. The feature it can improve is essentially application-based load balancing with intelligent load distribution for applications that require redundancy and high availability. This feature operates at a micro-level, specifically focusing on the payloads of applications.

To clarify further, I believe that if NSX offers this functionality along with robust security measures for application payloads, it would greatly benefit customers. Instead of investing in additional devices or appliances for load balancing and security, organizations would likely prefer to leverage NSX's integrated capabilities in this regard.

We have been using this solution for the past six months. 

As for stability, the customer I mentioned earlier is extremely satisfied with the product's stability.

VMware doesn't have a physical presence in Pakistan. They recently initiated their operations here. However, we do have interactions with their team based in Singapore, and I must say they are quite supportive. The customer hasn't raised any complaints regarding their support. The time required for deployment can vary based on the size of the infrastructure, but typically, it can be accomplished within a two-week timeframe.

Positive

One of our prominent clients is a major university in Pakistan, and they expressed dissatisfaction with their current solution, Sentra for SCI. They expressed a desire to transition to VMware, specifically NSX, as they are seeking hyper-converged integrations with both cloud and on-premises solutions.

Regarding the initial setup, VMware products, including NSX, are generally straightforward to set up and deploy, so complexity hasn't been an issue.

The implementation of VMware NSX can be cost-intensive, especially if an organization is looking for a comprehensive solution. The costs can vary based on factors like the level of conversation and discounts obtained during negotiations. Some government organizations, for instance, may find the prices relatively high, leading to concerns about budget hikes, especially when deploying the solution across the entire organization.

Regarding maintenance and support, they are typically included in the standard licensing costs for enterprise-level businesses. While these costs can be significant, many companies opt for standard licensing to ensure they have access to necessary support and maintenance services.

The deployment of NSX security can be somewhat challenging, and it requires a thorough understanding of the organization's specific needs and objectives. To effectively implement NSX security measures, it's crucial to have a clear understanding of the applications, payloads, and various components within the network environment.

The solution's most valuable feature is ease of use. Its filtering features work best for our business requirements.

It could be helpful if the solution's licensing model is based on the number of VMs rather than hypervisors.

We have been using the solution for seven years.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability as an eight.

The solution's scalability depends on the licensing model.

The solution's customer service is good.

The solution is reasonable at the local level. But it is expensive to deploy it globally.

I advise others to understand their business requirements. They should know if they want the solution to block some protocols or to make accurate filtering. I rate the solution as an eight.

The micro-segmentation and the ability to create policy rules are valuable.

There's generally quite a lack of specialists in this space. One of the challenges as a reseller is that I need technical people to go and offer in-depth conversations about the products. We would engage someone to do that, or we would look for some engineering resources to be able to do the implementation. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of those. There is a massive skill shortage.

It's a good product, but the way that it has got so many multiple levels that need to be purchased makes it expensive and cumbersome. They seem to value shareholders more than customers, but most corporations seem to do that anyway.

I don't use the product. I sell the product. I've been with VMware for multiple years. It has been about three years or so.

It's stable. None of my customers have complained about it from a stability point of view. They complained about its cost a lot, but people are quite happy that it's a stable product.

There don't seem to be any issues with scalability. I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of scalability.

Most of our clients are small to medium enterprises.

We are just reselling the product. I've seen demos and things like that. It seems very straightforward. 

There could be some challenges around the implementation time, and you need to know what you're doing. There were some challenges from one of our customers. It had to do with the migration of VTT that wasn't made clear to him, so he complained about that, but it's not my experience. Some of the end-users in that space may have a feeling that they're not being informed sufficiently of product changes in a timely manner. 

Our customers have definitely complained about its cost. It's expensive. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of pricing where ten represents a high price. There are other products out there that are equally expensive.

I'd definitely recommend doing a proof of concept. Do a trial deployment so that you can understand the requirements and you can understand how the rules are created. So, definitely, try before you buy should be there.

I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

Our clients are moving from traditional to virtual infrastructure, so we sold them vSphere, vSAM, and NSX to manage all the workloads inside VMware. All the VMs work just like traditional infrastructure inside an appliance.

NSX has excellent security features like virtual firewalls. I also like the micro-segmentation features, which are useful for the virtual machines inside the servers.

I started working with Nutanix NSX last year. 

I rate NSX eight out of 10 for stability. 

NSX is easy to scale. 

We sell Nutanix, Dell EMC, HPE, and IBM. Right now, I'm working with IBM Storage and Power Servers. We have Pure Systems, too, but I'm still new. It's my first week at the company, so I'm still studying other vendors that I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm not implementing. I am selling the solution. You can use it on-prem or in the cloud. If you are using SRM, including NSX in your workloads makes things easier. You can easily move everything, including the network security and several layers inside the appliance, to the cloud or any other site.

VMware has a subscription and perpetual license. In the New Year, they're changing many things about the licensing model. Previously, NSX was licensed according to the number of sockets inside the appliance, so we bought VMware licenses based on that. However, that may have changed this year. We are still contacting the vendors to understand the new licensing strategy.

I rate VMware NSX nine out of 10. I recommend it.

We were using VMware NSX for high availability. 

We recently used it to migrate a way to the public cloud.

The migration methods are the most valuable aspect of this solution. The rest is just overly complicated.

We had some issues with the cloud version.

It needs to be cheaper.

We are stopping its use. We won't need it because we'll be using cloud-native.

The company has been working with VMware NSX for six years.

I have hands-on experience with VMware NSX.

It was on-premise, but we just used it to do cloud migration to VMC, and it will be removed after that.

The on-premises version of VMware NSX was not stable, but it was for VMC migrations. 

The on-premises version of VMware NSX is not scalable.

The cloud version is most likely fine. I couldn't really say, but after the on-premise system was implemented, everyone was afraid of change. It was really flaky.

We don't have a large number of users. It is not used as such by people; it is a piece of infrastructure software.

There would have been less than half a dozen, not very many.

I personally have not had any contact with technical support.

The initial setup is complex.

TCS assisted us with the installation.

If five is a good price and one is a high price, I would rate the price a one out of five.

I would not recommend this solution to others.

As a technical solution, I would rate VMware NSX a five out of ten.