VMware Aria Operations Reviews

Being able to pinpoint performance issues, or just general troubleshooting for the environment, and consolidating everything into one central pane of glass.

We can find problems before they start becoming bigger issues. We have all the info in one area. It's already finding all kind of things we need to do to fix the issues.

Maybe more dashboards or an easier configuration of the dashboards,

Recommendation to anyone implementing and deploying this solution: Review the sizing guidelines, then deploy from that using the best practice guides provided.

Stability is good.

The scalability, for what we have, it's pretty good so far.

For vROps, they are usually pretty good. We usually reach the right person and they are knowledgeable.

We were just using vSphere like built-in monitor before vROps.

We got vROps because we didn't have anything to consolidate all the stats, etc.

When we researched a new solution, these were the features most important to us:

• The interface
• Ease of upgrades
• The value that it adds.

We had an existing setup, but we have upgraded it. The latest version upgrades have been pretty straightforward. Some of the earlier upgrades were a bit more involved.

We did the upgrades.

I don't know if we really considered anything else. I think the first choice was vROps.

If you are considering vROps, do some demos of vROps before considering something else, just because the latest versions are pretty good.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Support
• Ease of use
• Ease of upgrade setup
• Actual value from the actual product.

As it's the only tool that I've found which I could provide to our NOC team. Because we have our set of tools that we use in system administration, but we do have a NOC team, and the NOC team is not very proficient in the tools we use. Therefore, we had to give them something that is simple enough to use, something they could display on a big screen in their NOC, in order to see alerts in our virtualization infrastructure. vROps was the only tool which we found which was capable at the time to create customized dashboards, and we created the dashboards specifically for our NOC team to find any storage issues and any network latency issues.   

It was also one of the only tools that was available back in 2015 that was able to integrate with our storage area, so it had the management pack. We used to have HP 3PAR at that time, and HP gave us a free management pack to install on our vROps, so not only did we have full visibility into our virtualization infrastructure, we also had the visibility into our 3PAR.

The one thing that I miss the most with vROps is that it's a read-only tool, meaning that you see the issue happening. You can troubleshoot, you can do all kinds of deep-dives into the issue and find out what the root cause is and everything, but in order to get it fixed, whatever it is (doesn't matter what it is), you need to log into another tool in order to fix it. Thus, if you see a latency issue with data store, you can pin point where it happened on your 3PAR, but you need to open the 3PAR management console to get it fixed. Same with a VM. If it tells you that you have a lack of resources, and you need to add 4GBs of RAM to the machine, it doesn't offer to do it for you. You will need to log into vSphere Client and add RAM.

I started using it in 2015. Three years ago.

I would say it is stable, but it does require frequent updates. 

In the early days of vROps, back when it was vCenter Operations, we did have some stability issues with it. Every now and then, we had to reboot it for no good reason because no one was able to log in, but I think with version 6, released a year and a half ago, those things disappeared. Still you need to keep it well-maintained. By comparison, if we upgrade our vSphere infrastructure every six months or so, unless there is a critical patch with vROps, we find ourselves updating it every two to three months.

With version 6, we were able to add instances, so it's very scalable. Once you run out of resources, you can either scale up by adding RAM and virtual CPUs to it, or you can just add another instance. It synchronizes automatically. With version 5, this was not available, like horizontal scaling - just going up. 

I don't have a good opinion of VMware support. 

I remember at one point, one of our instances was corrupted, and they tried their best to recover it, but in the end, after digging in its insides for three days (and they really dug), they just told us, "You need to rebuild the instance. We can't recover any of your data. Just spin up a new instance and start collecting data from scratch." 

So we lost all our historical data. It wasn't business-critical, because we were able to export our dashboards and import them into the new instance, so NOC was operational a few days after the incident.

Other than this experience, we have not had the best experience with VMware support.

The pricing: It's expensive.

• It is about being able to keep tabs on your VMware environment as a whole, instead of having to log into your vCenter all day and keeping tabs.
• It's about being able to get alerts for whatever goes wrong with your systems, and what helps in getting around in your vCenter environment.

We have use it to maintain our VMware infrastructure, and for that, it seems to be good.

What we can do is product chain monitoring. We can keep tabs on a certain app which is running. Whatever is wrong just shows up as red, instead of green, then when we know who to talk to. It's an easier way of doing things than logging into vCenter for every little problem, and trying to find out what's wrong.

Maybe a little more flexible in terms of being able to combine monitoring results with results from other products without having to buy stuff from Blue Medora. It used to be that way in the past, but they gave it all to Blue Medora, and they charged everything, "with a fork".

It seems okay. Not much to complain about, since it seems stable enough. We have had a few problems with the stability in the past, when we tried to make it a cluster, but as long as you don't do something like that it works.

The issues we did have were general database corruption issues, and problems getting it to do whatever it was suppose to do. Also, problems getting settings changed, which kept making them stick.

This is not an issue for us yet. We don't have enough VMs to go outside the scaling properties of vROps.

We have used the basic VMware support, and it seems alright.

If you want to monitor something else, besides VMware, use something else. Use it for monitoring VMware, nothing else.

• Performance bottlenecks and the entire IT infrastructure, on the storage side and the virtualization side. That helps us out a lot.

We are partners of a lot of vendors out there. We also do management services. That helps a lot of our end customers resolve any of their bottlenecks on the storage side or virtualization side or the VM specifically. So that helps us out.

At my previous job, not at this location, vROps helped avoid outages and shorten outage times. It clearly projected what the growth pattern looks like on a specific data store. So it really helped us. If we didn't have that report from vROps, the data store would have probably filled up and would probably have gone down; that would have been a lot more impactful. Luckily, vROps did trigger that alert for us. Then, we were able to act on it. It helped us out in avoiding a big outage, I would say.

It does a really good job of capacity management, as well, because we have automatic reports that we trigger every week. We compare it with the previous week. It does a good job of capturing the capacity management metrics.

The performance management features have also helped. We have taken the recommendations from vROps. We have seen performance go up. Definitely, it helped.

I've heard certain improvement ideas from certain customers. There are certain issues with capturing the information on vSphere application metrics. vROps doesn't clearly capture those metrics. That is what I heard. I still have to play with it. I've not gotten a chance to play with that piece of it, but I've heard from customers about it. If at all, if they could improve that on vROps side, that would be helpful.

It's perfectly stable.

It's scalable. We have done a lot of upgrades and we didn't have any issues moving them around onto a different server as well; no issues.

We have used a lot of technical support for vROps. We have had a lot of custom-built tabs for our vROps environment. Technical support was awesome. We are business critical customers. We are on the BCS support. It's awesome.

Initial setup was pretty straightforward. It wasn't a big deal. Just getting it installed, pointing vCenter to it and then monitoring and capturing all the information. It was pretty straightforward. It didn't take us that long.

We have an ELA with VMware, and vROps is part of the ELA.

We were not looking at other vendors to provide a similar solution.

VMware is one of our big partners. That's the reason we go with them.

Just go get it.

I've been using it for a long time. I know the ins and outs about it. I've been happy with it because there's no other solution which can really do end-to-end, that kind of stuff. That's the reason I'm in. This is the only product that's out there that can really do end-to-end monitoring, management, and at the same time, capacity management. That's the simple reason for my perfect rating.

We use it to monitor our system and optimize performance.

It visualizes stuff better, so we can pinpoint or see problems. However, I feel as though there is a lot of potential in the product that we haven't utilized.

The most valuable features are the trending and analytics.

When you deploy it as a single node, it's more stable than if you have multiple nodes. We've had some issues with this.

Scalability is good, but I haven't tested it that much.

I have tried the technical support.

It is pretty straightforward.

I would recommend NSX. From my experience, the solution is pretty good.

We use it for our virtualization and infrastructure. It's used for a lot of clusters, a lot of hosts, VM workloads on-prem and a little bit off-prem. It's doing great. Really no complaints.

Increases efficiency, drives down costs. Being able to consolidate everything on similar hardware is really helpful, as opposed to trying to manage a bunch of hosts. It has helped us reduce time to troubleshoot issues and quality of service is better because there is more uptime. Taking maintenance is a lot easier now than it used to be. We don't have to take as many outages.

The most valuable feature is all the metrics we get. They're really good. Being able to drill down and find out where the CPU and memory bottlenecks are and being able to tune them is really helpful.

It's intuitive and user-friendly, especially with the new clients. It's really nice. It's really easy to use. The HTML 5 client is light years ahead of the old one. Everything runs faster, it loads a lot quicker, it's a lot cleaner, the UI is easier to navigate.

The stability is high. Normally, the problems we have are hardware problems, not virtualization problems. They're usually related to the hardware vendor.

You just need to pop in a new host, install ESX, and go.

I haven't needed to use technical support.

I've done expansion of it but I have not been involved in the initial build. What I have done is pretty easy. I've had some guidance but the documentation is online and a lot of it is easy to find.

Of course the licensing, if they could make it cheaper, that would help. But they have to build out new features, so I understand.

Everybody virtualizes now. It's just the thing you do. It's so efficient. I could go through the list but being able to consolidate infrastructure, you save time, you save money, it's just something you do.

They have done a pretty good job. The new client is really good.

Being able to get detailed analysis on different applications.

We are able to do additional detailed reports for our customers, in terms of certain spikes in the environment, different loads, etc.

Possibly additional automation.

It's pretty good. 

It's good.

We weren't using anything previously, but we're always looking at new technology, just to see if it might benefit the customer.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was straightforward.

Before implementation, review best practice guides. There are a lot of them out there. It will make the process easier.

Hyper-V and Acropolis.

We went with VMware's vROps because the customer selected it.

I would definitely recommend this solution.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: simplicity, functionality, but mainly simplicity. 

The most valuable feature must be positive planning and the way you can see real-time weekly updates, these are the plus points of this solution. If there is any kind of business constraint going on and the users of the stakeholders are asking for updates such as why it is down, or why is the CPU percentage low or can we have a historical trend., then all of this information you can easily get from the solution. So, we mainly use this solution for getting this data and putting it on paper, such as what is the particular time that something happened or this time the server went down, etc. Hence, it can give you a brief idea of the microscopic data.

There is scope to improve the computing aspect.

It is one of the best stable solutions out there. I have used vCOps prior to vROps so I cannot judge as to how the stability was before and how it is now.

We have Platinum Support so everything is in place, i.e., not only for vROps but for all the solutions that they provide, so their technical support is the best. The team is knowledgeable.

An engineer came to us from their end to help us to install and deploy the solution for us; it was a piece of cake for us.

I will definitely recommend vROps to others.