VMware vSphere Reviews

We can maintain our own infrastructure according to our needs. We need to buy the solution only once, and we can do what we need to do. We can deploy several servers. We can also deploy other machines. We can create templates. OVF is the best feature. We can create an OVF, send it to the other node, and create similar VMs with the OVF.

We can deploy our own bare metal hypervisor over the hardware at the required capacity. We must know how to configure it. The product is not difficult to use. The users access their PCs using a remote desktop protocol. It is as simple as using our own laptops. The solution’s high availability is very good. The tool provides 99.99% uptime.

The hardware cost is high. We need to change the hardware after some time. It is a big headache for the organization. Private clouds are more secure than public clouds. However, public clouds offer services that we can never see in vSphere. VMware must improve its login page.

The UI must be improved. The solution must improve its log system. When a machine fails, it mentions the log but doesn't describe the infrastructure or how the code is designed. If I put one machine on migration and it fails, the log is generated as the user timed out and disconnected the host. Apart from this, there's nothing else mentioned in the log. It is difficult to identify the problem with the machine. The log system is very poor.

It is a challenge to increase the storage. If we have ten users when we start, but the load on the server increases to 20 or 30 after a month, there is a chance that the site will go down. We have to be proactive in implementing datastore. If we have ten users, we must plan to have hardware for 20 users. The cost will be high, but it will be more secure.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The on-premise version is stable.

We are a client-based organization. The number of users depends on the clients. There might be 5200 people using the product in our clients’ organizations.

We have deployed the solution on-premises. The solution has a private cloud, too. There are no hybrid connections available. The initial setup is not difficult, but it is not easy. A normal user cannot do it. We need the expertise to install bare metal. The installation is easy if we know the configuration criteria.

The tool is neither expensive nor cheap. The pricing depends on the users. Suppose we have 100 users, and the architectural team spends $10,000 on infrastructure to build the data center. After some years, we have to replace the systems and upgrade them.

Since I am an engineer, I troubleshoot the issues I face. I recommend people use a public cloud provider. If someone requires a separate data center, they can choose VMware. It is the best solution on-premises and as a private cloud. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I deal with the solution in my company to work in the area of data center virtualization.

The most valuable features of the solution are in areas like VMware vSphere vMotion and vSphere HA.

From what I know, the area revolving around the licensing part of the product is not quite friendly. The licenses for those who have a partnership with VMware are not a good thing because we have to use the tool for demos and simulate it in a customer environment. In our company's setup, considering that we have a partnership with VMware, it is very hard to have licenses, making it an area where improvements are required. VMware's NFR licenses were previously available for partners, and the tool used to provide demo centers within such licenses, but the aforementioned licensing structure for partners has been presently discontinued. The product should also provide the partners with the facility to provide the tool's demo in a test environment for customers.

The solution's technical team is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using VMware vSphere for five years. My company has a partnership with VMware.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten.

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

Our company's main customers who work with the solution use it in sectors like banking, finance, and government.

My company deals with small, medium, and enterprise-sized customers who use the tool.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

The solution's technical team offers fairly good support in some cases, and in a few other cases, they need to offer more help, which is quite difficult to get, and it also depends on the support engineer our company gets.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup phase an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means that the setup was a very easy process.

The solution is deployed on the public cloud and hybrid cloud.

The tool's deployment phase takes time, as it is not a quick process. The tool's deployment phase takes a few days to be completed.

The tool is a bit expensive.

With VMware vSphere, it is easy to manage the scaling of our company's virtual infrastructure.

VMware vSphere helps our company's customers in the area of virtualization since it provides good scalability features. In the government sector, people need to engage in a lot of documentation work when purchasing new hardware, and it can be helpful to use the product in such a scenario. In any environment, the product is easy to scale for general usage.

VMware vSphere's high availability or FT feature is used by our company's customers in their clusters to keep their servers available as much as they can. The use of the product ensures minimum downtime, and its users prefer to use the high availability feature of the tool.

The performance and efficiency of the use of the solution have improved our company's customers' organizations. From the use of VMware vSphere, the performance and efficiency of your customers have increased by 30 to 40 percent.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

This solution has a very comfortable interface for snapshots for my virtual machines. That's very comfortable.

For example, if I want to make templates to create a certain type of virtual machine, I have it in vSphere. Moreover, it includes things like deployment, implementation of different templates, snapshot deleting snapshot, restoring a machine to snapshot or administrative administration things.

The web console is the most valuable feature for me.  Because no matter what happens with the server, I can still get to it with the web console.

There is room for improvement in Google Cloud. The reason thing there was, like, when I type something in the terminal and then immediately, I need to go to edit the certain like file for Node.js, for the server, or for Kubernetes. So I have to do it from the terminal to the editor.

And for some reason, each time I had to switch, I had to literally switch between the terminal and the editor. I wish I could have it on one screen to have the terminal and on the other to have the editor.  This would greatly improve my experience with this solution. 

I have been using it for a couple of years.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is very stable, and I have never had any major problems with it.

There are over a few hundred users using this solution in our organization. 

I would rate the scalability a solid eight out of ten.  It is scalable enough for my needs, but there is always room for improvement.

The initial setup was very easy and intuitive.

If I didn't understand something, this solution provides tons of information,e explanations,  courses, and instructions on their website. We also live in a reality of chatbots and AI, so everything is very easy to set up. 

I would advise you to check out the VMware website and watch some of the initial and fundamental courses. The web console is very intuitive, but it can be helpful to see how it works before you start using it. 

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

Our primary use case is virtualization. All the clients who want to virtualize can use vSphere to do it.

I like stability and the organization of the different functions into the I#M feature which is also quite useful, quite stable. I would prefer the old solution because before, you had to install software on your client's desktop to administrate the environment. Since five or seven years, it's not needed. You can do everything through your web interface. And I prefer when it was more reactive, so when you have a client instead of using your desktop. But it's a good solution, quite stable and quite efficient.

In future releases, I would like to see less pricing. The license can be improved. 

I have used this solution for over 15 years. So it's one of the first products we've used with a client.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. Around 20 to 30 customers are using this solution. 

The customer service and support are good. However, it could be faster and more qualified. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It is intuitive-- Next. Next. Next. Next. Finish. Easy. Great.

For the deployment process involves materials, equipment, licenses, and the availability of the client team.

It took about one or two hours for one server; it's okay. The deployment was super quick. 

A team of engineers and admins is required to deploy and maintain the solution. We have a team of ten people. 

The licensing model is yearly-based. It is quite expensive.  Moreover, there are extra costs to the standard licensing fees. 

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

I would advise to be sure that the functionality brought by VMware aligns with the good functionality because there are other products in the market like ISPs, KV M, Oracle, Microsoft, and some other stuff. And VMware is a well-known product. But to be sure that the functionality provided by VMware is needed.

We use the solution for virtual machine virtualization and as a hypervisor. 

The tool's most valuable features are CPU virtualization and RAM allocation, which are better than those of other hypervisors. 

VMware vSphere requires a lot of paid add-ons that need to be integrated into it. 

The solution is highly stable. It is stable as long as there are no hardware and software issues. 

My company has hundreds of customers who use the product. 

I am very satisfied with the tool's technical support. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward. To implement it, you need to plan, deploy, and migrate the solution. 

The solution's licensing is costlier than other hypervisors. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. It doesn't have any significant security features, and you can only get it through add-ons. 

We have been virtualizing our on-premises data center. We relied heavily on VMware vSphere to manage our servers; all our virtual server loads are hosted on it.

The tool comes with scale-out capabilities. Deploying new infrastructure became much quicker, saving significant time previously spent sourcing hardware for each installation. It also has the ability to downscale on rack spaces, reducing the number of rack units needed to accommodate our servers.

Its most valuable feature is remote replication which comes with high availability. 

I would suggest that the tool reconsider its pricing strategy. The recent price hikes could potentially pose a problem for VMware in the future. The recent price increases, especially since Broadcom acquired them, seem excessive. There are reports of businesses experiencing massive price hikes, sometimes as much as 10-30 times higher. This is causing smaller businesses to consider exiting the space altogether.

Overall, it's a functional system that works well. However, I believe that systems like Nutanix offer better integration and functionality. While both are solid hypervisors at level one, VMware vSphere's management, especially through the web-based interface, could use improvement.

I have been working with the product for 15 to 16 years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

VMware vSphere is highly scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten. My company has 400 users. 

I rate the tool's ease of deployment a six out of ten. It was quite complex due to various hardware restrictions and issues. We had to address several technical issues with VMware along the way.

I would rate the deployment process as typical regarding time and considerations. However, the migration from on-premises to the cloud was a bit cumbersome. It required a bit of work. 

The installation phase took about three months initially when we deployed on-premises. This duration was understandable as we had to virtualize numerous physical servers and handle various complexities. Transitioning to the cloud extended the project timeline to approximately six months.

I believe the biggest return on investment stemmed from significantly reduced deployment time frames. Commissioning and deploying systems and accommodating growth became much faster—measured in days rather than months. This efficiency and consolidation efforts resulted in a high long-term ROI.

I rate the solution's pricing a ten out of ten due to the recent price changes. 

My advice to those considering VMware vSphere would be to carefully assess your business's size and the product's value proposition. It may not be well-suited for smaller enterprises due to its prohibitive cost. It's important to consider alternative solutions. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the product for server virtualization.

VMware vSphere has a user-friendly GUI. It is easy to deploy and find troubleshooting articles as well.

There could be an inbuilt dashboard for reporting purposes. At present, we have to use another paid solution for the same.

We have been using VMware vSphere for the last ten years.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. We have a huge environment with VMware infrastructure for multiple users.

We encountered some delays with the responses from the technical support team. The resolutions could be more informative.

Neutral

We used Citrix before. It could be more stable. Comparing both the solutions, VMware is better than Citrix.

The initial setup process is straightforward. It takes around four to five hours for end-to-end configuration. We have 60 to 70 engineers to manage the deployment. 

The product helps us save around 20% to 30% of costs.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a three out of ten. They have multiple products with extra services. It increases the cost.

I recommend VMware vSphere and rate it an eight out of ten.

We use it exclusively for internal purposes within our company, managing our office infrastructure as a private cloud solution.

It stands out as a comprehensive and advantageous solution, providing a full package that effectively caters to our needs for managing our private cloud.

The most significant aspects for us are the invaluable features of High Availability and vMotion in VMware. Additionally, the seamless sharing of resources and numerous other robust features make it highly commendable. Specifically, the capability to implement a load balancer between hosted environments without any downtime is particularly appreciated, underscoring the platform's reliability and advanced functionality.

The current concern revolves around the pricing as it might be less affordable for certain regions. In countries like Tunisia and many others in Africa, there seems to be a challenge regarding the cost of licensing.

I have been working with it for ten years.

It is robust and stable, rating it a perfect score of ten out of ten.

It offers good scalability. I would rate it eight out of ten. It's a small organization, with one hundred users.

It boasts robust support. I've collaborated with local partners in Tunisia, and their operations, coupled with same-day support, have proven highly responsive. I would rate the support experience a solid ten out of ten.

Positive

I have experience working with Hyper-V, and when comparing stability, VMware surpasses it across various generations. While Hyper-V has shown improvement in newer versions, it hasn't reached the level of stability that VMware consistently delivers.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. I would rate it eight out of ten.

For deployment, it typically takes around two to three days with minimal configuration. One person is often sufficient for handling such setups. It's worth noting that if we opt for solutions like Analytics or other complex configurations, the need for additional personnel may arise, but for straightforward deployments, a single person can effectively manage the process.

I find it highly expensive. I would rate it ten out of ten. It would be highly beneficial for VMware to collaborate with local hosts and partners in countries like those in Africa to establish specific pricing that would align with the economic conditions of countries in Africa, ensuring suitability and compatibility with our consumption capabilities.

In instances where organizations operate on robust infrastructures and budget constraints are not a significant concern, my usual recommendation is VMware. This is especially true for financial companies that prioritize investing in and managing critical software solutions without financial constraints. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.