VMware vSphere Reviews

The primary use case is server virtualization and it brings stability to our workloads.

The most valuable features are stability and support. The stability of this product is very good, and I have not seen an issue for many years. It is very stable for all of the features that are available today.

I would like to see support for endpoint virtualization.

Another thing that I would like to see are improvements with respect to performance.

I have been using VMware vSphere for at least seven or eight years.

The stability is very good and should be a top priority for choosing this product.

This is definitely a scalable product and it is used in a virtualized environment.

The support is very good and we have had no issues with them.

Compared to other products, vSphere is number one in terms of flexibility and scalability.

Pricing is a little bit on the higher side, compared to other products.

Basically, this is a good solution and most of the features are already there. I can recommend it to others. That said, I would like to see better performance.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this product as a solution for backups and security.

The functionalities and management of the product demonstrations need improvement.

It is a stable solution.

It is highly scalable. We can add new hardware and expand the infrastructure easily.

The tech support is good. 

The setup was easy to install and deploy. It took one or two days for deployment.

The pricing is expensive but we really do not have a choice.

I advise anyone looking to use this solution to take the VMware webinars to familiarize themselves with the product. 

It's how we manage our server infrastructure virtually.

It meets all of our needs.

I'm looking forward to the HTML client being finished. That's the thing that's annoying me, but I know it's coming this fall.

If they were going to make the transition from the standalone installable client to the HTML, I wish they would have done more development on it before they released. It's not feature-complete, so we have to go back to the old client to do certain things, and I don't really want to.

It's a very stable product.

We haven't had any scalability issues yet. I don't foresee us having that issue. We're small enough that, if there is a case where it wouldn't scale, it's not going to be discovered by us.

Technical support is always helpful.

I would absolutely recommend it. vSphere has been at the last two jobs that I've had and it's solid.

It's a definite nine out of 10. I'm not sure that there's anything out there that would be better. Microsoft has a hypervisor but I think VMware is more feature-complete.

vMotion between the hosts, deployment of the virtual machines via templates and distributed switches are some valuable features of this product.

It allowed us to move from a physical environment to a virtual environment. It also allowed us to install much more of the hardware, i.e., up to 30+ virtual machines on a single physical server.

There is need for high availability for the vCenter and also a faster/responsive vCenter web interface. True high availability for a vCenter is required in the current virtualised world. With the introduction of 6.5, VMware has now introduced true HA with heartbeat monitoring.

As VMware have gradually decided to move from the C++ thick client to the flash based web portal, and now to the HTML5 web based portal, the legacy flash based web portal for vCenter 5/6.0 was sluggish and slow. On many occasions when going through nested windows for VMware configuration, the flash plugin or browser would crash. Fingers crossed with the new HMTL5 based web portal as so far it's been solid. Even though it doesn't currently have all the features of the flash based portal, I hope VMware releases a fully-functioning HTML5 in the next release of vCenter.

I have used this solution for six years.

Sometimes we have encountered vCenter/vSphere issues that requires the service to restart or the server restarts. The web interface has a lot going on and if the browser crashes, then any progress is lost on the vCenter.

I did not encounter any scalability issues for the VMs.

The technical support is good. I had to use it for iSCSI related issues and was told to upgrade to latest build. However, it didn't fix the issue.

I was not using any other solution previously.

I set up a clustered virtual environment and distributed switches with integration into EMC VNX using VLANs for each SP for iSCSI traffic.

It is expensive for the private sector but it does have a good pricing policy for the charity sector.

We tested Hyper-V - but this was back in 2009. It was very basic then.

You need to place more time into the design phase. You should also build higher spec servers in order to save costs on the licensing.

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.

It's allowed us to consolidate our hardware.

• We spend less money on hardware.
• We're able to get better use of data center space because our hardware is consolidated into a smaller footprint.

The VSAN storage could be improved.

I've used it for over 10 years.

No issues encountered.

There are only slight issues.

It's very good.

It's very good.

No previous solution was used.

It was a straightforward initial setup.

Know what your needs are and then license accordingly.

No other options were evaluated.

It's important that you understand the technology before using it.

• The deployment of Distributed Virtual Switch
• Hyper visors for 5.1, 5.5, 6.0
• We use these to deploy our product (Cisco switches)

• Very flexible and scalable SDN solution
• We can add hypervisors with VNX and switches for a CSA fabric solution; it's very flexible for that
• We can scale up Nexus switches for ACI (application centric infrastructure)

• Right now, the NIC teaming feature has only four roles, only supporting it for one role (IP route hash), but it should include all roles
• MAC pinning feature should be there in NIC-teaming
• It needs a more friendly UI, as right now it's difficult to see what we’re maintaining

It’s a hyper visor residential product, and the AVS status is shared between hosts immediately through vCenter, making it more stable.

Using vCenter and AVS, we can create easily, and transparently, a VMM (virtual machine manager) domains. In general, we can scale easily.

No direct experience.

It was a very easy initial setup, including the ESXi host.

We must meet a real-switch behavior and functionalities. Go ahead and definitely purchase it.