{"quote":"There are challenges when resources need changing without shutting down VMs.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The solution is scalable, allowing us to scale up or down regardless of infrastructure size.","score":"9"}

Users compared various platforms, with Kubernetes, OpenShift, and VMware ESXi standing out for stability, updates, and cost-effectiveness.

{"quote":"The price rating is nine out of ten.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The pricing is expensive, with the cost for customers ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 yearly.","score":"9"}

VMware ESXi enhances IT operations with stability, security, efficient resource usage, server consolidation, scalability, and centralized monitoring.

{"quote":"Providing a mobile application for remote access to ESXi servers would be beneficial.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Improving the efficiency of this feature for better scalability would enhance the product.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"We often face issues with ESXi that require us to change resources by shutting down the VMs.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"The network failover feature is also reliable and favored.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Its capability to move virtual machines to physical machines is very efficient for our live environment.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"The integration with networking and virtual network switches is one of the most valuable features.","score":"9"}

Our primary use case for VMware ESXi is hosting VMs in a live environment, benefiting from its networking integration and efficient VM migration. However, improvements in scalability features and the addition of a mobile app for remote access would be advantageous.

<p>VMware ESXi offers monetary savings by consolidating machines onto a single server, providing stability with disaster recovery and High Availability, and integrating easily with third-party applications. Despite its efficiency in resource management and scalability in production environments, its cost and initial investment requirements are substantial. Horizontal scalability limitations, complex password recovery, and slow technical support responses are noted drawbacks that affect its competitiveness and user satisfaction.</p>

They have used Proxmox, KVM, Hyper-V, Citrix, ZenSource, Commvault, IBM PowerVM, Nutanix, and Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization. Proxmox and Hyper-V lacked features found in VMware ESXi, but open-source options were free. Hyper-V had issues with resource optimization. They were considering Sangfor and Proxmox for high availability. VMware Workstation and ESXi each had its benefits. They worked with VMware technologies for seven years, favoring Nutanix for cost-effectiveness and VMware for features.

VMware ESXi is considered a costly solution, with initial acquisition costs ranging between $20,000 to $30,000 depending on server clustering. Since Broadcom's acquisition, price adjustments and the discontinuation of perpetual licenses have increased costs, making it expensive for enterprises, particularly in developing regions. While pricing structures have become more complex, tailored licensing can mitigate expenses. Pricing generally ranges from $10,000 to $20,000 annually, commonly rated high on expense scales.

<p>VMware ESXi surpasses its competitors by offering a robust hypervisor architecture, seamless integration with various management tools, and superior performance optimizations, enabling efficient resource utilization and high availability for virtualized environments.</p>

<p>VMware ESXi is costly, and its pricing could be improved.</p> <p>Changing the licensing model from perpetual to subscription is a concern for customers.</p> <p>VMware ESXi requires a significant initial investment, and its cost is a concern.</p> <p>The patching process in VMware ESXi needs improvement.</p> <p>The setup phase of VMware ESXi is complex and requires an experienced team.</p>

VMware ESXi deployment varies in complexity. Some teams complete it in 10-15 minutes, while others, especially in complex environments like healthcare, may need a month. Many rely on external support from vendors or partners for successful deployment. Internal teams, including technical and procurement, play vital roles in the process. A proficient professional is often required for setup, but maintenance can be managed by a single individual due to the platform's user-friendly nature.

VMware ESXi's initial setup is frequently described as straightforward and manageable. It typically takes from 30 minutes to a week, depending on the complexity of requirements and environment. Many emphasize the simplicity with adequate documentation and vendor support available. Some highlight the setup becoming easier with experience, noting that any complexity is mainly due to customization needs. Security teams often collaborate to ensure proper integration, and planning for future capacity is recommended. Maintenance is considered relatively easy.

VMware ESXi’s customer service receives mixed responses. Many call the support effective, praising its quick issue resolution and skilled team, rating it highly. However, concerns about delays, especially for initial-level assistance post-Broadcom acquisition, are noted. Some users depend more on vendor support and face increased ticket acknowledgment times. Still, others rarely need help, indicating ESXi’s reliability. The shift from VMware to Broadcom has impacted support quality, resulting in lower satisfaction for some.

Most users implement VMware ESXi using an on-premises deployment model. A smaller segment opts for a hybrid cloud approach, balancing on-site infrastructure with cloud resources. Instances of utilizing a private cloud setup appear minimal compared to the prevalent on-premises preference.

VMware ESXi enables cost savings by reducing infrastructure needs and simplifying management tasks, thereby decreasing procurement times and manual efforts seen with alternatives like Hyper-V. While some find it efficient, rising costs have been noted. Users mention savings in time management, yet others are contemplating different options for better financial efficiency. Efficiency improvements are acknowledged, but expenses have been comparable to previous multi-year costs now spanning just a single year.

Users advise others to explore different hypervisor options before choosing VMware ESXi due to cost considerations. Many appreciate its stability, security, and virtual network management, noting improvements in server efficiency and disaster recovery. They recommend regular patching and using supported hardware. Despite its cost, ESXi's features and reliable support are praised. Users are satisfied with its integration, compliance, and data protection capabilities. Many rate it highly and endorse it for various business sizes.

Most users rate customer service and support of VMware ESXi between 7 and 9 out of 10.

VMware ESXi offers monetary savings through server consolidation, high reliability, and easy installation. Its features include vMotion, high availability, disaster recovery, and resource scheduling. The web interface supports easy management and third-party applications. Users appreciate its fast operation, integration, and server management capabilities. ESXi's ability to optimize resource usage through features like memory compression and hyper-threading is beneficial. It's favored for virtualization, providing efficient resource allocation and seamless backups without affecting uptime.

VMware ESXi exhibits high stability, with ratings generally between eight to ten out of ten. Users report smooth operations and minimal issues, making it a favorite due to regular maintenance. While a few experience downtime, they still consider it reliable for their needs. Some note a decrease in stability but recognize improvements after patches, maintaining positive experiences with the environment. Most users express confidence in its capability to support their operations without major disruptions.

VMware ESXi has numerous areas for improvement including its high pricing and complex licensing model which have become concerns following Broadcom's acquisition. Users express dissatisfaction with the licensing changes and suggest enhanced server management features. There are also requests for simplified setup processes and troubleshooting, faster support response, improved patching, and a more intuitive user interface. Many advocate for easier password recovery and more efficient scalability options, while some suggest a mobile application for remote server access.

Organizations primarily use VMware ESXi for server virtualization, optimizing hardware resources by consolidating physical servers into virtual machines. It hosts diverse applications, aids in data center operations, and supports private and public sectors. VMware ESXi enhances IT infrastructure, allowing multiple operating systems on single servers, offering stability compared to alternatives, and serving as a foundational hypervisor platform. It assists in development workflows, resource allocation, backup, high availability, and virtual infrastructure management.

<p>VMware ESXi offers monetary savings by allowing for server consolidation.</p>
<p>VMware ESXi is praised for its reliability, especially in production environments.</p>
<p>Features like disaster recovery and vMotion are highly valued for their critical contributions to IT operations.</p>
<p>Users highlight the straightforward nature of the initial setup process.</p>
<p>VMware ESXi is ideal for small to medium-sized businesses, with scalability and stability being key attributes.</p>

VMware ESXi is praised for its high scalability, making it suitable for various businesses from small to enterprise-level. Users rate its scalability between seven to ten out of ten, often highlighting its vertical scalability benefits. Challenges include flexibility concerns in horizontal scalability and licensing. Users appreciate the ease of adding servers and managing virtual machines, with large organizations effectively handling thousands of users without major scalability issues.

Users have been utilizing VMware ESXi for a range of less than a year to over 20 years.

Users evaluated various alternatives to VMware ESXi, including Hyper-V, Nutanix, Oracle VM, OpenShift, and Kubernetes. Hyper-V is noted for being free with data center installations, while Docker is mentioned as potentially superior to virtual machines. Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization and Nutanix for HCI are also recommended. VMware ESXi is seen as more stable and well-supported, but users are exploring options like RHL and OpenShift after VMware's acquisition by Broadcom.

VMware ESXi offers a reliable and stable environment enhancing confidence in IT operations, especially in production. Security features like access control bolster protection. It reduces data center footprint by running more workloads and optimizing resources. Efficiency boosts through server consolidation and centralized monitoring improve service delivery. It supports ERP system management and complies with standards. Scalability allows multiple servers on single machines, utilizing hardware resources effectively. Performance depends on virtual machine specifications.

6.35

8.0

{"quote":"Using Splunk has saved my organization about 30% of our budget compared to using multiple different monitoring products.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"9"}

6.75

{"quote":"The implementation process involved around five to ten people due to our organization's processes and need for multiple approvals.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"6"}

{"quote":"Overall, I would recommend Splunk to anyone seeking a monitoring solution, thanks to its extensive capabilities and features.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"I'm still experiencing some features of the product. However, in future updates, I would like to see more predefined monitoring query solutions, which could be more effective.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"7"}

{"quote":"Overall, I would recommend Splunk to anyone seeking a monitoring solution, thanks to its extensive capabilities and features.","quality_score":"10","sentiment_score":"9"}

8.5

{"quote":"Technical support is good but could be improved, particularly concerning the time taken for ticket resolution.","quality_score":"6","sentiment_score":"3"}

{"quote":"Using Splunk has saved my organization about 30% of our budget compared to using multiple different monitoring products.","score":"9"}

9

{"quote":"Technical support is good but could be improved, particularly concerning the time taken for ticket resolution.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Considering the features it provides, the pricing is quite affordable compared to other monitoring solutions.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Splunk is a bit expensive since it charges based on the indexing rate of data.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"I would like to see more predefined monitoring query solutions.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"The most valuable feature is the ability to customize dashboards based on my queries or any other customization I may need.","score":"9"}

I use Splunk for centralized log monitoring, valuing its customizable dashboards. While exploring some features, I hope for more predefined monitoring queries. Opting for Splunk has saved us around 30% over other monitoring products due to its flexibility and cloud solutions.

Splunk Synthetic Monitoring surpasses its competitors by offering real-time performance insights, seamless integration with existing workflows, and comprehensive user experience metrics, empowering businesses to proactively optimize their digital services and ensure exceptional customer satisfaction.

SentinelOne Singularity Cloud was favored for management, performance, AI-driven features, replacing Sophos, Windows Defender, and Trend Micro.

Users considered a variety of options including McAfee, Symantec, Trend Micro, Sophos, WatchGuard, CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, Bitdefender, Orca Security, Prisma Cloud, Wiz, and PingSafe. Cost, ease of use, performance, legacy support, and pricing flexibility played crucial roles. CrowdStrike and McAfee were noted for their higher costs, and WatchGuard licensing was found complicated. Singularity Cloud Security's user-friendliness, single-agent deployment, and pricing advantages stood out in evaluations.

Users compared virtualization options for stability, cost, and features, favoring VMware for updates but considering Docker for efficiency.

Users evaluated Hyper-V, Nutanix, Oracle VM, Kubernetes, OpenShift, Docker, Proxmox, KVM, Sangfor, ZenSource, and Citrix alongside VMware ESXi. Cost and support vary widely. OpenShift and Nutanix considered competitive options. Kubernetes and Docker noted for favorability over VMs. Hyper-V, despite issues, remains used. VMware ESXi praised for features and stability, but licensing costs drive consideration for open-source alternatives. Red Hat and Nutanix present notable alternatives post-Broadcom acquisition.

Organizations transitioned to SCOM for its integration and comprehensive management after using various monitoring tools like Nagios, Azure, and SolarWinds.

In-house experts and external consultants collaborate on SCOM deployments, handling challenges and ensuring configurations, with varying deployment timelines.

Most users prefer On-premises deployment for SCOM, followed by Hybrid Cloud, with Public Cloud being the least popular option.

SCOM setup complexity varies, with preparation and environment size affecting deployment; installation is simple but configuration requires effort.

Microsoft's SCOM support is often praised for its professionalism, responsiveness, and effectiveness, especially by enterprise customers.

SCOM monitors Windows environments and various platforms, providing alerts, asset management, and performance analytics for servers and applications.

{"quote":"The setup involved integrating with SCCM and was quite extensive, but it was completed in one day with SQL and rules.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"8"}

{"quote":"SCOM's transition to a software-as-a-service version in Azure would be a great improvement.","score":"8"}

SCOM excels in scalability for Microsoft environments, with positive reviews, but struggles with non-Microsoft devices in large infrastructures.

6.25

SCOM offers customizable monitoring, real-time alerts, and seamless integration, enhancing visibility and control for Microsoft environments and beyond.

{"quote":"SCOM is not as straightforward in terms of user interface or general experience, which could be improved.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"3"}

{"quote":"SCOM provides alerting capabilities and threshold settings, which are helpful for monitoring.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"9"}

Plan thoroughly, involve stakeholders, allocate resources, and train for effective SCOM use, especially in Windows environments.

SCOM improvements needed in dashboards, application monitoring, integration, configuration, and performance, with reduced costs and complexity for efficient use.

The typical use duration of SCOM is between 5 and 10 years for most users.

Monitoring infrastructure enhances control and ROI; however, costs vary, affecting organizations' experiences with value and latency issues.

4.75

SCOM pricing is often bundled in Microsoft's suite, offering cost savings but with potential licensing complexities and additional expenses.

Users considered various monitoring tools, valuing SCOM for cost efficiency, Microsoft compatibility, and straightforward use under existing licenses.

SCOM's reliability has improved since 2012 R2, with proper setup crucial for optimal performance, though minor issues persist.

SCOM boosts application availability, proactive monitoring, and efficiency with automated alerts, enhancing infrastructure insight and SLA compliance.

{"quote":"I would like to see a software-as-a-service version in Azure to eliminate the need for on-premise infrastructure.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"SCOM is not as straightforward in terms of user interface or general experience, which could be improved.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"It provides alerting capabilities and threshold settings, which are helpful for monitoring.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"SCOM integrates several systems and offers correlation features, like setting up everything around Active Directory or DNS.","score":"8"}

<p>SCOM offers comprehensive monitoring, alerting, and auto-remediation for data centers and IT infrastructure, with a focus on Windows-based systems and integration with Microsoft tools. While its customization and extension abilities are strong, it needs improved support for non-Windows systems, network devices, Oracle processes, and cloud environments. The setup process is complex and often requires additional tools for management, and there's an opportunity for better integration and support with diverse operating systems and applications.</p>

We use SCOM to integrate and monitor systems like Active Directory with alerting and threshold settings. Its user interface could be more intuitive, and a SaaS Azure version would improve accessibility. We also use SolarWinds and Defender portal for monitoring.

Several monitoring tools preceded SCOM such as Big Brother, Foglight, SiteScope, MOM 2005, Cacti, Nagios, SolarWinds, StatusCake, VictorOps, BMC Patrol, Tivoli, HP OMW, IBM's monitoring system, NetIQ AppManager, HP Operations Manager, WhatsUp Gold, eSight, Network Node Manager, Microsoft Project, Excel, LANDESK, Manager Engine, HP OpenView, ManageEngine OpManager, Microsoft Azure, SolarWinds SIM, Microsoft SCCM, and Microsoft Intune.

<p>SCOM surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive monitoring capabilities, real-time performance metrics, and seamless integration with Microsoft environments, ensuring efficient infrastructure management and proactive issue resolution to enhance user experience and system reliability.</p>

Enterprise buyers find SCOM's pricing reasonable, particularly when included in a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement or the System Center suite. Licensing is streamlined, offering Standard and Datacenter options. Many report low costs due to existing agreements, with development environments sometimes free under MSDN licenses. While compared as costlier than open-source solutions, SCOM provides extensive features across multiple products. Organizations note special pricing for sectors like education and variance depending on regional and customer-specific agreements.

<p>SCOM struggles with reliable network device monitoring and needs enhancements to better support Unix-based and non-Windows systems.</p><p>The dashboards and end-user components lack user-friendliness and have numerous configuration challenges.</p><p>There is a need for better Oracle process monitoring and improved integration with Linux and networking devices.</p><p>SCOM requires significant improvements in real-time monitoring and report customization, including user-defined dashboards and detailed logs.</p><p>Cloud monitoring features and expansion, including cloud engine monitoring and APM solutions, are insufficient.</p>

Many highlight that implementation was done internally, often reaching out to experts when needed. Some partnered with consultants or vendors for initial setup. Experience varies, from using SCOM's SDK and in-depth planning to optimize SQL resources. Teams noted the importance of processes and proper configuration. While several utilized Microsoft's guidance, others managed the deployment independently, suggesting a skilled internal team or consultant can streamline the process.

SCOM's initial setup is perceived as both straightforward and complex. Many find it simple when prerequisites are met and documentation is followed, making deployment manageable. However, some note complexities in configuring alerts and management packs, requiring careful preparation and resources. Challenges arise with integration, scalability, and custom configurations, demanding significant time and expertise, especially for larger environments. Proper tuning and customization are crucial for effective functionality, and experience varies depending on prior knowledge and organizational size.

SCOM aids organizations by minimizing downtime through efficient infrastructure monitoring, meeting Service Level Agreements, and reducing penalties from customers. Some see positive ROI when using SCOM with other Microsoft System Center products, while others focus on the capability to proactively handle disruptions and inform users. Licensing costs are low when integrated into existing System Center suites. Despite challenges such as latency, many benefit from informed decisions on server management and auditing reports.

Users rate customer service and technical support for SCOM highly, particularly if they have a Microsoft Premier Support agreement. Microsoft provides knowledgeable, responsive technical support, handling complex issues efficiently. While some users find support inconsistent, others appreciate prompt escalation for urgent problems. Non-official resources, like community forums and blogs, offer valuable insights. Satisfaction levels vary, but Microsoft is largely appreciated for its comprehensive service and resource availability for SCOM support.

SCOM's stability varies, with earlier versions experiencing console crashes and DB issues. Later versions like 2012 R2 and 2019 are praised for consistency and robustness, provided they're configured correctly. Proper resource allocation, maintenance, and scaling are crucial to maintaining performance. Users note occasional glitches during updates and server restarts. Those who experienced problems often relate them to infrastructure rather than inherent software flaws. Stability ratings frequently fall between eight to ten out of ten.

SCOM's customer service and support receive a rating between 4 to 5 out of 5.

Most entities utilize an on-premises model for SCOM deployment. A smaller number opt for a hybrid cloud approach while very few choose public cloud.

<p>SCOM enhances organizational efficiency by providing in-depth monitoring and problem determination capabilities for applications and operating systems.</p>
<p>It offers robust integration options, including seamless connectivity with Microsoft Active Directory and the ability to monitor Windows and Linux servers efficiently.</p>
<p>SCOM promotes proactive management with features like real-time alerts and automatic discovery of components, reducing manual intervention and speeding up response times.</p>
<p>It extends functionality through customizable management packs and maintenance schedules, improving flexibility in monitoring and reporting.</p>
<p>SCOM supports scalability, allowing organizations to expand its monitoring capabilities as needed by acquiring additional licenses.</p>

Users advise others to thoroughly understand their specific monitoring needs and invest time in setup and customization when using SCOM. They emphasize the importance of resources and experienced personnel, as the tool is complex and resource-intensive. Planning with all stakeholders is essential, and many acknowledge its Windows-centric strengths. Users highlight the potential benefits of integrating with cloud solutions, discuss challenges in heterogeneous environments, and note the importance of ongoing tuning for optimal performance.

SCOM requires improvement in license cost, reducing event volumes for incident systems, and simplifying management packs. Users find dashboards and reporting inadequate, non-Microsoft product monitoring weak, and setup processes complex. The solution's heavy footprint, user interface, and interoperability with cloud technologies need enhancement. Greater focus is required on cross-platform support, user-friendly dashboards, and application performance management. Better documentation, more intuitive alert systems, and integration with third-party tools are also needed to improve overall functionality.

Users have been using SCOM for a range of one to 15 years.