We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The SwiftStack Controller, which is the web UI, provides out of band management. This has been one of the best features of it. It allows us to be able to do upgrades and look at performance metrics. It is a top feature and reason to choose the product."
"Technical support is good."
"Provides good performance as well as integration with deployment tools."
"Everyone uses virtualization to more efficiently utilize hardware resources. That's the main point of vSAN and VMware."
"Very good VCG notification feature."
"We've found the solution to be scalable."
"The most valuable features are productivity and data storage."
"Stretched Cluster is one of the big features that we use across multiple data centers."
"We find it easy to deliver this solution."
"The file access needs improvement. The NFS was rolled out as a single service. It needs to be fully integrated into the proxy in a highly available fashion, like the regular proxy access is. I know it's on the roadmap."
"I would like to see better integration between the cloud and our VMware virtual environment. We only have one virtual environment, which is VMware vSAN. Right now, there is little interoperability with the cloud solution at the moment."
"They can improve the manageability of the solution to make it more simple. It is not that complicated, but it will be good if they can make it more simple."
"The only negative point relates to the licensing. If you want multiple, different servers, it costs money, but you have all the capacity for vSAN. You do not reach the data, but the processor arrays and the current architecture."
"They can package it in a way that is specific to the hardware infrastructure and the hardware platform. It should stay fairly up to date with the drivers and the manufacturer issues. The problem with uncoupling the proprietary technology and component capabilities is that by uncoupling them, you run into some concerns or challenges over the poor performance model. These concerns really come when you start talking about high performance, high bandwidth, and high availability types of environments. While vSAN is a leader, in a critical view, it is not about being cost-effective. It is more about the immediate impact of money loss to the business in critical applications where we want to maintain a continuous operational 59 model. It is, however, good for QA/QC tasks. I don't necessarily know how it works in regards to VDI or virtual desktop infrastructure."
"In a future release, they could add micro-segmentation or security level features integrated into vSAN."
"Hardware load balancing is available on the enterprise version of the solution, however, it's extremely expensive and therefore out of our budget."
"We plan to switch products since the hardware nowadays is a little bit outdated and we need to scale up a bit."
"I would like to see more support for applications. I think currently it only supports applications between two vSAN clusters."
"Dollar per gigabyte, it costs us more because we are storing more. However, if you look at it from a cost per gigabyte perspective, we have dropped our costs significantly."
"The pricing model is great and makes sense. We have talked about how to get into more of a frequent billing cycle than once a year. That would be an interesting concept to add into the product, having the ability to have monthly billing instead of having to do a one-year licensing renewal. However, the way the license works by charging for storage consumed is definitely what makes them the most competitive."
"We are able to dynamically grow storage at a lower cost. We can repurpose hardware and buy commodity hardware. There is a huge cost savings, on average $100,000 a year compared to traditional storage for what we have at our size."
"In comparison with other solutions, such as HP or Cisco, I find the solution to be quite pricey."
"It is expensive. It should be cheaper. It has a perpetual license as well as a subscription-based license, but they are moving towards subscription-based licenses."
"I would like to use more advanced models of the solution but the price needs to be reduced. There are some extra costs for this solution including a license."
"The price of VMware vSAN is expensive and there is an annual license required."
"For a classical node plus storage solution, the price is higher."
"We pay for a license to use the solution through our company CapEx and then we continue to pay annually."
"The price is expensive."
"The solution requires a license. The payment is on a yearly basis and It is not overly expensive."
Earn 20 points
VMware vSAN is the industry-leading software powering Hyper-Converged Infrastructure solutions.
What vSAN Does
SwiftStack is ranked 8th in File and Object Storage with 1 review while VMware vSAN is ranked 2nd in Hyper-Converged (HCI) with 52 reviews. SwiftStack is rated 9.0, while VMware vSAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SwiftStack writes "We are able to dynamically grow storage at a lower cost". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware vSAN writes "Gives us a lot of advantages when we need to expand resources". SwiftStack is most compared with MinIO, Red Hat Ceph Storage, Dell EMC ECS, Scality RING8 and NetApp StorageGRID, whereas VMware vSAN is most compared with VxRail, Nutanix Acropolis AOS, Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, HPE SimpliVity and Red Hat Ceph Storage.
See our list of best Cloud Software Defined Storage vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Software Defined Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.