Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with vCenter Orchestrator.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
On the KVM side, we really don't have anything. There we have a gap. It's a very small deployment on the KVM side, however, it would be ideal if we were able to properly use all the resources and get the full performance of the platform. On the orchestration side, we're lacking the KVM part as well. There can be compatibility issues. We need to keep track of different versions of the software. For example, we're still on E6 I6 6.5. In some cases, we can't upgrade to Red Hat 8 yet, for compatibility reasons. Every time we do, we have to be applying HPE firmware and stuff. Sometimes we run into complications and we have to stage everything in the lab just to make sure all the versions are compatible. There's this forward and backward compatibility of different software you need to constantly be aware of.
I would like to see better performance.
The product is not quite easy to use and needs improvement in that regard. When the SSO certificate needs to be renewed, the upgrading and testing are quite complicated. We faced this issue just three months ago.
It is practically difficult at this stage to really comment on the improvisations of V central. But more tech events and PoC cases would help the EA to design better solutions and utilization. As a customer and a DC Architect, it would be great if more self-learning resources are made available online. One on one sessions from VM ware for rapidly growing organizations like us will further strengthen the intent of embracing the product portfolio from VMWare. A couple of the pointer in this regards can be as below: 1. Quarterly technology reviews from the OEM. 2. Consultation and handholding 3. Opex Model
I think that vSAN can be improved. The GUI should be enhanced in the future.
Using this solution requires a lot of experience.
The licensing is expensive and should be improved.
The migration from site-to-site needs to be improved. It should be easier to automate tasks in bulk, such as instantiating several VMs. I would like to be able to automate RDMs for clusters. This solution needs to have more built-in workflows.
The solution needs to integrate with Cloud facilities like AWS and Azure. Containerization, which I believe they are working on, needs to improve too.
The UI should be more simplified so that fewer tech users are required. The workflow can be complicated. I would like a simpler workflow, and I would like it to be more friendly to use. In the next release, to make it easier to write the workflows, I would l like to see more HTML GUIs.
The interface could be improved to bring greater user-friendliness and ease of use.
Storage has room for improvement. It's a big problem for our solution. The interface also needs improvement, it should be simplified. They should integrate more storage systems for the replication. There should be an integrated replication tool. We have two sites and we want to have the data between the sites and all the data replicated. There is no ability to do that now. You have to buy this ability from another vendor. It's very expensive. The quality of the product is fine, it's good quality but the price is very high. In the next release, they should have better data synchronization between different brands and hardware so that you can replicate two data stores. VMware should maintain decent replication. There's no synchronization between VMware and different brands. For example, one installment from Dell and one installment from HP should be able to synchronize their data.
We haven't gotten to that level of usage yet as to be able to see the downsides. The solution has been able to handle our basic requirements at this point. Maybe in a year, when the team has used the solution extensively, we would be able to actually see the drawbacks, especially those of us who are trying to compare it with other solutions as well. As we work towards more stability on the solution, sometimes we'll try something and it breaks and it's easier to restart the service. That's the only drawback. We've experienced this with other applications as well. It would be great if the solution could further integrate with other services. it would be really good to have all of the solutions in one particular dashboard or one particular installed package. Right now, you can do that from other products, but we have to orchestrate it or have it as a subset. It would be great to actually have all the features bond together, especially for SMBs. It would be really cost-effective in the end.
The solution could be a little bit less expensive. It used to be cheaper, but now it is very costly and the license model counts by the processor. The currency conversion rate in Egypt is very high, and a couple of thousand dollars means here a lot of money to us here. Mainly VMware integrates with other products, but there is no easy way to link with other products from a different vendor. We can integrate with other products from the same vendors fairly well, but if they could make it so integration is easier with other vendors, that would really help.
It is too expensive. One of the main issues is the price. I don't know if vCenter Orchestrator can automize the provisioning of other products and other virtualizing software besides for VMware. If it will develop the ability to be a multi-provider product it will be better for VMware. I would it to become multi-platforming, like what vRealize does.
VMware continues to improve its product, and we find a lot of new features that have improved over the years. I would like to see a greater ability to do mobile administration.
I would like to see, from within the Web Console, being able to define the project and custom templates per user; almost like how CloudSpec has approached the solution.
We all know it's really hard to get good pricing and cost information.
Please share what you can so you can help your peers.