VMware NSX Reviews

We primarily use the solution in order to build a private cloud.

I'm not using it directly. Basically, for me, this is just another tool in the portfolio. I'm not the engineering staff that are next to the console and doing configurations.

Overall, I would say the solution has been quite stable.

The solution is likely scalable.

I haven't heard of any problems with the solution.

Any technical product has its own limitations in one place or another.

Our technical team is always looking for the solutions that they work with to offer more convenient integrations.

I've been using the solution for around a year or so. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

There are some limitations in terms of scaling. It depends on how you would like to scale. Our engineers are using it and they don't see any problems with the scaling, however, it doesn't mean the same will work for any other organization.

Currently, we have more than 10,000 end-users. Our technical team isn't really that big. However, I can't say the exact number.

We do plan to continue to use the solution, however, we don't have plans for any big expansion.

I do not have any personal experience with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful, knowledgeable, or responsive they are.

I cannot say if there was a different solution used in our organization. It had been implemented before I arrived.

I didn't handle the initial installation. I can't speak to how easy or difficult it was to implement, or how long it took to deploy. I wasn't a part of the process.

I'm not involved in the licensing process at all. I have no knowledge of how long our licenses last or how much it costs the company.

We are just a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with VMware.

We use a few different VMware products, not just NSX.

We aren't necessarily using the latest version of the solution. We usually use the latest minus one or two versions.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly quite please with it.

The solution is a software-defined firewall. You can set the policies and filter the incoming traffic from our site to our network. Any hostile request coming from an external network will get blocked. 

The most valuable and unique feature of the solution is Micro-segmentation achieving better security, through enabling security architects to divide data centre into different segments. One being the VMS withing the on-premises, the other one on the Cloud.

There could be an improvement in regards to security. This solution cannot migrate all assets smoothly and continuously, for example, the host

Sometimes the physical hosts are not able to be converted into virtual ones, which needs to be fixed. 

I have been using the solution since 2012.

We have many users in our organization. There are approximately 50 administration and more than 300 users using this solution.

We also use NSX-T alongside this solution. NSX started with micro-segmentation and the other option is based on a different architecture with some differences.

The installation is straightforward, it took a couple of hours.

The deployment happened base on the deployment topology that is defined by the security architect. I did the deployment by myself. 

This solution requires a licence. 

I have used other firewalls in the past. 

I recommend this solution and I am going to continue using it in the future.

I rate VMware NSX a nine out of ten. 

This is a product for network security, and network management. 

We don't use it at the production level. I am conducting a PoC.

We are using this in our testing data center and not in our live data center. This infrastructure contains many security devices from other vendors such as Palo Alto.

We are also using vSAN and vCenter.

The most valuable features are stability and low cost.

There are always issues integrating with Cisco.

Switching is always a big problem for us because our switch is not supported.

If the integration was more open, then it would be good.

I have been using VMware NSX for three years.

We are using the latest version, and we already want to upgrade it.

It's a stable solution. We plan to continue using it.

There are three users in our organization who are using this solution.

VMware technical support is good but we find that the Cisco support is better for us.

This product is better for network security than Cisco ASA and Firepower.

The initial setup is straightforward but still takes time.

It takes longer to deploy than Cisco products. It takes between three and seven days to deploy,

We had a team of five for deployment. Two are from our company and three were from the vendor.

We have a license.

It is an expensive product, but cheaper than some competing solutions.

It's a good product.

This is a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The Environment was an active-active Tier-0 multi-site deployment (primary/secondary).

It contained compute and management clusters, and a small number of transport ESXi nodes (between five and six) v6.7u2, vCenter 6.7u2, AD.

The primary use case was to implement micro-segmentation and route production workloads through NSX-T via BGP. Our customer needed assurances that BGP routing within NSX-T would be efficient.

We implemented a very simple architecture and setup site with one NSX Manager as the primary source. This was a financial customer, thus security was the main item.

We had to explain to the customer that NSX-T deployment and micro-segmentation were two different projects explicitly.

NSX-T has allowed us to implement micro-segmentation in the customer's environment seamlessly (zero-trust). We have also looked at deploying Tufin or Gardicore, ReSTNSX as alternative tools. The Environment was an active-active Tier-0 multi-site deployment

The organization was able to begin scaling out its production workloads and clusters.

From a security standpoint, the customer was able to better secure critical workloads while routing L2/L3 worked normally, giving them more confidence that they would be ready for any potential security incident mitigation or outage (DR).

The most valuable features are:

• N-VDS Geneve encapsulation L2/L3
• Less need for the VM to hit the TOR switch to communicate with VMs on the same ESXi host/segment (logical switch)
• Micro-segmentation capabilities/tagging
• NSX-T dashboard/compute usage across the configuration allows a quick view
• The NSX-T configuration screens are fairly easy to navigate but they might need to simplify them a bit in future versions.
• Very extensive detailed configuration items can be set in Uplink profiles to better map pNICs
• Edge TEP and Host TEP tunnel config and troubleshooting is much more understandable and verifiable

Traffic flow introspection topology visibility is definitely needed because at the moment, NSX-T lacks in this area.

A hardware scan of the ESXi host for possible incompatibilities should be added to NSX-T/vSphere, as it would allow us to know in advance, for example, if a pNIC is not compatible with a version of vSphere before moving forward with an NSX-T deployment. 

It needs a better, integrated migration tool. Something like RestNSX with more elaborate capabilities from a troubleshooting perspective and pre-migration perspective would be an improvement.

I have used this solution version most recently, as it has not been out that long.

Many companies are moving to v3 and v3.01

N-VDS will be depreciated in newer versions and integrated within the standard VDS

From a recoverability standpoint, if designed correctly and perhaps if VMware SRM is integrated with NSX-T, it would help the stability of workload availability.

From a routing perspective, NSX-T must be designed for redundancy with cross/overlapping uplinks from the edge nodes to your L3 upstream devices. Routing will be more reliable with default routes in place. Hardware compute and compatibility with the solution is critical for good communication via the  nsx overlay network.  Overall this solution is very scalable

NSX-T is extremely scalable as a solution. Make sure that you plan your IP pools accordingly in advance if you plan to add many transport ESXi nodes in the future.

VMware Global support for NSX-T/V is exceptional.

We have never used any other solution. NSX is the premier product in this space.

The initial setup will go smoothly if the design of the solution was done correctly. 

NSX-T can be complex if the discovery phase was not granular enough.

We implemented it with an in-house team.

Customers will better be able to determine ROI once they have been running the solution for a year or so. How much they will have from the Capex perspective will have to be calculated.

My advice is to make sure that you properly scope the project from both hardware and network requirements. NSX-T can be complicated if it is not designed correctly.

Some customers are evaluating Gardicore vs NSX.

Gardicore is a great tool for micro-segmentation only. It can fill in many gaps that NSX-T misses with its native micro-seg capabilities.

An NSX-T solution requires a solid understanding of routing/switching, IP pools, local egress, and solution design to be successful. It takes a team of both VMware and Cisco folks to collaborate to get it done right the first time.

As a customer, make sure you are hiring the best resources.

We use the solution for the software-defined network. 

I am impressed with the tool's protection. 

The tool's setup is complex and we need support to implement it. 

I am working with the product for two months. 

The solution is stable. 

My company has three users for the tool. We plan to increase the usage of the solution in future. 

The solution is difficult to deploy due to network complexity. The deployment took three months to complete. We had around five to seven resources involved in the product's deployment. They were mainly from the roles of network security and infrastructure. We created a plan and deployed the solution following it. 

Our partner helped us with the solution's implementation. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. 

We compared the solutions from Cisco and Nutanix. We chose VMware NSX due to its price. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use NSX in our data center. 

We use the NSX firewall which is great. 

I'd like to see more integration with other solutions. 

We've been using this solution for over two years. 

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I haven't used technical support. 

I recommend this solution and rate it seven out of 10. 

I primarily use NSX for micro-segmentation, security, and load-balancing.

NSX's stability could be improved.

I've been working with NSX for six years.

I would rate NSX's stability eight out of ten - there's room for improvement.

I would rate NSX's scalability eight out of ten.

The initial setup is easy and takes between one and five days.

I would give NSX a rating of seven out of ten.

We use VMware NSX for box integration. If box integration is still a code, we use this technology to understand it.

When we have problems in the Kubernetes cluster inside the XDN or problems in the Container Network Interface (a container integrated with the NSX), we can join the Kubernetes cluster data source. If there is a problem in CNI, we can see the connection with the NSX manager and create alerts.

The alert features are the most valuable.

The integration with other brands is not the best and could be better.

We have been using this solution for almost two years. We are using version 3.1.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable, and we have 20 users using this solution.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten. Their support is excellent.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have had a very good return on investment.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. I recommend VMware NSX because it's a powerful tool. We can see the flows inside the SDN, which has a lot of power.