VMware vSphere Reviews

There are several features we've found valuable, including:

• DRS
• SDRS
• vDS
• Resource pool sharing

By engaging virtualization and vSphere's advanced features, we've started to effectively manage workload and resources, resulting in better performance with fine grained tuning.

One of the features I would like to see is less constraints on the fault tolerance feature. Version 6 may have this, but we don't have it yet.

I've used it for four years.

We haven't had issues with deployment.

It's been stable for us.

It's scaled sufficiently for us.

We haven’t have many interactions with customer support. For the ones we had, it was satisfactory.

We haven’t have many interactions with technical support. For the ones we had, it was satisfactory.

We already had knowledge of the product on the team, so it was easy for us.

We're working with a Hardware-as-a-Service model where we're responsible for the software and VMware is responsible for the hardware. We implemented vSphere together with the vendor.

We considered using Xen/KVM, but we didn’t want to spend much time on the configuration and wanted to start working on the product out of the box.

I would recommend analysis of different options and pricing, including public/private-cloud models. Depending on your application and needs, you may not need such an advanced product as vSphere Enterprise.

The two features we've found most valuable are vSphere's reliability and stability.

Primarily, we've been able to save on energy costs. It also gives us easier migrations when upgrading infrastructure.

We had some stability issues, though they were due to bad hardware and not software.

I've used it for four years.

We've encountered no issues with deployment.

The problems with stability were due to hardware problems, never software.

We haven't had any issues with scalability.

8/10

9/10

We started with VMware, so we never used a different virtualization solution.

The initial setup was nothing but easy. The system was running in just a few minutes.

We implemented it in-house.

We advise in general that the Essentials Plus pack is the best option for the majority of our customers.

No other options were looked at.

Nothing to be afraid of. Everything about vSphere is advantageous.

vSphere's performance and stability are its more valuable features for us.

It's helped us to include automatization in all processes, thus reducing maintenance hours and increasing energy savings.

The price is too high right now.

I've worked with vSphere for 6years now.

I'm a vExpert so I don't have any issues with deploying it.

With v6, there were some stability problems, but after an update to a later version it's been stable.

That's one of the great things about vSphere -- its scalability.

Customer service is insufficient.

Technical support is outstanding.

I previously used Hyper-V, but it isn't stable and is a complex solution.

The initial configuration is very easy, and the deployment of centralized management is an assisted process.

We implemented it in-house.

You only pay for what you need, so there are a lot of features that we will not use.

If you want to sleep well, get vSphere.

• vMotion
• DRS
• High Availability
• Snapshots

We're now able to provision new servers faster and have the option to perform snapshots prior to implementing changes.

The installation of vCenter SSO for a lot of my customers could be improved, but I think it's a totally useless feature.

I've used it since version 4.0, so around six years.

Sometimes there were issues during the installation, especially with certificates.

Only once in five years have we had stability issues.

Customer service is not so bad.

Technical support is also not so bad, but it could be better if it could be localized with non-English languages. Both I and my customers sometimes have difficulty understanding them.

I started with vSphere, so I haven't used any previous solutions.

In the previous version (5.1/5.0) the initial setup was terrible, now it’s much better.

I can do the implementation myself.

I think it’s quite expensive.

I think it’s quite expensive.

My customers also looked at Hyper-V and XenServer.

Make sure you have a lab for testing.

VMware has polished their offerings for High Availability, fault tolerance, and live migration beyond any of their competitors.

Engineering new solutions in a difficult task. Working for a university, the student experience is our number one priority. Solutions can be tested in all manner of environments before deployment and go through rigorous testing before going live thanks to VMware's Redirect-On-Write snapshot technology.

While ESXi 6 brings fault tolerance for VMs with multiple CPU cores, I desperately, passionately need a better Web Client than the Flash-based monstrosity we've grown accustomed to. Having to perform certain tasks in the Web Client and certain tasks in the C# Fat Client make life very frustrating sometimes.

I have been working with VMware in various capacities for close to seven years.

The environment was already deployed when I arrived at each of the institutions where I've worked.

Moving to new releases is a tricky business. I highly recommend staying a version behind. It's bitten us multiple times, most recently with the suite of CBT bugs. We had to temporarily adjust our backup procedures, which involved a lot of communication and justification.

No, however, I have seen scalability issues with each of VMware's direct competitors.

I have no experience with their customer service.

I have no experience with their technical support.

I used to work with Hyper-V, but it is a very Microsoft-centric product. It has a long way to mature in terms of stability and cooperating with fringe cases. If you're an all Windows shop, Hyper-V is worth considering, but if you're a Windows/Linux mixed shop, and manage more than 200 servers, there is no good choice but VMware.

It takes a lot of upfront understanding that some shops simply don't have. I went for my VCP Certification, and the level of detail and expertise required is vast. Everybody needs to be on board: from your networking team, to your security team, everybody needs to know how it interacts with their domain and bailiwicks. It's a game changer on every level imaginable, and the implications need to be made clear. There is, without a doubt, increased complexity, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

Implementation was done in-house.

Our ROI is incalculable. We are a university and a university is its data. We can only afford to trust the very best. VMware has a reputation for being the "big player" for a reason, they really do the best. Hyper-V has come a long, long way since its first release, but it still has catching up to do.

Always pony up for one level higher than you think you need. It's so worth being able to implement new features and redundancies once your team is comfortable with how it works and what it means.

The Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) is your bible now. Read it, understand it, and do not deviate from it. If you have existing centralized storage you wish to use, it must be on the HCL. See what VAAI primitives it supports. Do not thin provision both Array Side and VMware side; pick one.

• The most valuable feature is High Availability. Even if there's a complete hardware or software failure of the host, which doesn't happen very often, we have peace of mind knowing the production servers can be restarted on a different VM if necessary.
• vMotion allows us to move VMs from host to host, which helps a lot while performing scheduled maintenance on production environments and for workload consolidation.
• vShield endpoint offloads the CPU and memory for virus protection and prevents update and scan storms.
• vGPU gives us almost bare-metal performance on virtual desktops from zero clients and it allows our users to move from device to device while keeping consistent experience and performance.

With vSphere, we were able to consolidate just about every workload, server or desktop, which in turn allowed us to save a lot on hardware, power, and space. Also, of course, deploying new desktops and servers in minutes is a definite time saver.

Some modifications are still require to be done with the CLI, directly on the host, like SSL certificate management and reclaiming storage space on thin provision disk (depending on storage devices). It would save a lot of time if those could have a simple GUI in the vCenter.

I've used vSphere for more than three years in general and a a few months for version 6.0.

No issues with deployment so far.

A few months back, we had random crashes of PCoIP sessions on virtual desktops with more than one monitor. But it turned out to be a problem with vGPU drivers provided by NVIDIA. So with vSphere itself, we've had no stability issues.

The vCenter makes scalability pretty easy.

VMware’s customer service is very helpful when you need to find the right product for the right environment.

We had to call VMware once so far and they really followed through. They diagnosed a problem related to a third-party driver (NVIDIA) and obtained for us a patched version of the driver from the manufacturer. They were very efficient!

In my previous company, we used oVirt, the free-of-charge version of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, which turned out to be way more expensive than a solution like VMware in terms of both human and hardware resources.

The initial setup was very easy, very straight forward. The only downside of the process was the replacement of the auto-generated self-signed SSL certificate by an enterprise-CA-signed one, which had to be done manually via CLI.

We implemented it ourselves.

Even though the initial cost of vSphere seems a bit high, it is really going to pay off by freeing time for teams and lowering your hardware costs. Regarding licensing, if you have any doubt, just ask VMware’s customer service to help you. Some editions and kits might already include all you need.

We evaluated Microsoft Hyper-V, but it seemed unfinished. Management tools are almost non-existent and hosts constantly need to be rebooted to install patches that are purely Windows related and have nothing to do with the virtualization itself.

For small infrastructures, start with the free vSphere Hypervisor. For small businesses, VMware vSphere Essentials Kits are inexpensive but limited to three hosts. So be sure you are not going to grow more than this for a while if you are considering this option. For medium-sized businesses and corporations, go for it. It will greatly reduce your operating costs.

The most valuable feature for us is Virtual Volumes because it gives us better control of VM stores.

It's given us the ability to consolidate SAN- and NAS-storage availability.

Even though the Web Client is faster and more efficient in v6 as compared to previous versions, it could be faster.

I've used it for three months.

We've had no issues with deployment. Upgrades from v5.5 went smoothly.

No purple screens of death with ESXi 6 whatsoever. vCenter Server works perfectly.

We encountered no issues with scalability.

We haven't used them often, but they've been excellent.

Technical support has been excellent.

We went with v6 to get the benefits of the better Web Client.

The initial setup was staightforward with the ESXi and vCenter upgrades. It worked the very first time.

We implemented it in-house.

We expect to save in the $100,000 range after only one year since we virtualized more servers.

Just evaluate the features offered in the different versions to meet your needs.

We looked at Microsoft Hyper-V and Citrix XenServer, but VMware has always served us well.

Install it in a test lab first if the experience level is low for VMware solutions.

There are several valuable features, including virtualization, of course, as well as DRS, High Availability, SRM, and vMotion.

It's really helped us out with our testing and development.

It's not perfect, and could use improvements with better stability and better support.

We attempted to upgrade from vSphere 5.0 to 5.5, but we weren't successful. We contacted technical support and, after a few tries, they closed our case and asked us to perform a fresh vCenter install and to create the inventory from there.

It hasn't been as stable as we expected.

Scaling it is not an issue.

Customer service needs a lot of improvement. They need to improve on keeping customers informed of their ongoing issues. They need more support for resolving issues rather than offering workaround and hitting the same issue again.

5/10 - I have opened tickets on a P1 support issue and it hasn't been resolved and I logged it over a month ago.

The initial setup is simple.

We implemented it in-house.

We didn't evaluate other options.

It's a good product, but you have to be patient with it when an issue arises.