Hyper-V Reviews

Mainly, I use Hyper-V to analyze whether it fits the customer's needs as a solutions architect. First, we determine whether the customer is a Microsoft user. Then, we consider pricing and compare it against the features of VMware or AHV to determine which solution would be most helpful.

In terms of how the solution has helped the organization, I would say that cost-wise, it is a cheaper solution than VMware.

The virtualization aspect of the solution functions similar to VMware is one of its most valuable features. Even though it costs significantly less than VMware, it has enough features to compete with it, especially in terms of virtualizing VMs, data stores, NICs, and VNX.

Many vendors, such as Cisco and HPE, are discontinuing support for Hyper-V as they believe it does not have a significant market share. This poses a significant problem for our Hyper-V customers since several major vendors will no longer provide support for it.

Hyper-V doesn't need additional features. They just needed to be well-defined. So, people aren't using it as much as before, and so they need to market it better. Everybody knows VMware, but not a lot of people know Hyper-V.

I have been using Hyper-V for at least five years. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using.

It is a stable product.

Even though Hyper-V is not as scalable as VMware, it can be considered scalable in general.

We don't have any plans in our organization to increase the usage of the solution. On the contrary, I see a decrease in its usage. Nowadays, we work with customers who are going to migrate to VMware from Hyper-V, even though we don't want them to do that. But there is nothing else we can do to stop them from our end. This downfall of Hyper-V is related directly to the fact that other vendors are not supporting Hyper-V anymore.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten since it is embedded with Microsoft support. So, their support is okay.

The initial setup process for Hyper-V was not that hard. If one knows about Microsoft and virtualization, it's not a hard product to manage or install.

I have experienced an ROI using the solution, especially when considering SLED customers.

It is one of the cheapest products in the market. So, even though Nutanix gives away AHV, one still has to pay for Nutanix home.

My suggestion to those planning to use the solution is that they use it in a smaller or simpler environment, and it'll easily do the job for them while being cost-effective at the same time. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

My company needs the product for the virtual machines in our environment. The product is also useful in areas like domain controller and Active Directory.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the support team the tool offers its users.

The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. When I contacted the product's office to raise my concerns about the tool's security, I was told that it would be taken care of in the solution's upcoming versions.

I have been using Hyper-V for two years. My company is a customer of the product.

Only ten percent of the time, there are issues related to breakdowns or bugs in the product.

The product is super effective when it comes to the scalability part. The product also offers super-effective performance.

Around 3,000 people in my company use the product.

The solution's technical support is the best.

I use VMware for orchestration. My company also used to use a product from Microsoft.

The product's initial setup phase is easy, considering that there are online tutorials available.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The product is a bit expensive, but it is worth the money.

The product's price depends on the scale at which it is used in the company.

My company chose Hyper-V over the other solutions, considering the good performance and support that it offers.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

It is not so easy for a person to learn to use the product for the first time.

In terms of handling workloads, the product is able to handle all of my work in the company. The performance of the product is good.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for our on-premise servers, and we have a couple of Hyper-V desktops that remote salespeople use to log in remotely. They have an on-premises station they can remote into and utilize everything at our other office. We replicate everything there, so if anything happens to our facility here, we can get spun up at our other location.

There are 40 people in our organization. We have sales engineers, technicians, and our standard office staff. Three servers are running off of Hyper-V, including our SQL server for our main CRM and QuickBooks databases, our central files storage server, and another files server that holds our backup domain controller. Then we have another domain controller that handles some other internal things. That is pretty much our organization in a nutshell.

We plan to expand usage of Hyper-V. For example, we have a terminal server that isn't on Hyper-V at the moment. It is session based, and we're working on transitioning over. Also, we got a brand new server two weeks ago, so we're transitioning everybody off of the terminal server to local Windows 10 and Hyper-V VMs. 

Everyone will have their own desktop environment versus having a session-based terminal. That way, if there's an emergency patch update or something like that for one person on the terminal server, we don't have to take the whole terminal server down. We can take down that person's desktop. We'll deploy as many as 12 additional Hyper-V desktops running in that. 

That will be our future deployment based on what we've seen in the Hyper-V desktop environment and its performance. It runs great. All users who have already transitioned to that environment are enjoying it compared to the old terminal server that we had.

We were running three servers, but Hyper-V enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server running NVMe drives in it. Using Hyper-V's virtualization, we can operate all our servers on one physical server. We're seeing better performance off of that thanks mainly to the NVMe drives. 

We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time.

Hyper-V is more cost-effective for the size of our business One of the Hyper-V's biggest advantages over VMware is the cost. We are a small business, so Hyper-V allowed us to virtualize everything we need without breaking the bank.

The most significant issues have with Hyper-V are the snapshots, local backup, and retention. VMware handles their backups are a lot better. I'd also like to see the ability to virtually hook an input-output device directly to the Hyper-V and the VMs, whether it be a card reader or disk drive. This is something you can do in VMware. 

We still use customer or software solutions that come on a disk. I often have to rip the data and transfer it over. If I could just throw it in my disk drive and link my disc drive to that VM, that would be beneficial, or if I had a card reader that I could hook straight in. It's not a make-or-break thing, but that would make everything a little bit easier on some installs.

We've been using Hyper-V in production for about three years now.

Hyper-V has been highly stable. I'm impressed with the performance. Granted, this was my first Hyper-V install, so I was a bit worried about it, but with the hardware platform that we have it on, everything's been excellent stability-wise, and I haven't had any issues with that server. It's been up and working for the past six months. I only had to reboot once to do an update. Everything has been working great.

Hyper-V is less scalable than VMware. It's excellent for smaller environments like ours, but VMware is still the go-to solution if you want to scale up.

Hyper-V's management platform falls short in terms of scalability, especially when handling multiple Hyper-V servers. VMware has a central console to pull in all your VM servers, so you can easily manage them all through one console. You can manage servers in Hyper-V's admin centers, but it's not as scalable. It's doable with a couple of Hyper-V servers, but it becomes harder to manage when you get over two or three Hyper-V servers.

I've never had to deal with their technical support. Everything has gone smoothly with Hyper-V. When I had a few minor issues, I was able to find solutions on the Microsoft forum.

We had VMware ESXi, but it came down to what we needed as a business. Hyper-V was the best bet for the cost. It all boiled down to cost and ease of deployment. 

The Hyper-V setup was straightforward. I transitioned all three of our servers by myself on New Year's Eve. I came in at 8 a.m. and had all three servers transitioned over to Hyper-V within about six hours. The initial setup for VMware took a little longer. 

First, we needed to get the Hyper-V server in place. Once we had that in place, we transitioned from the bare-metal servers to the Hyper-V transition for our initial servers. We used a solution — I believe it was called StarNet or something like that — to do our initial conversion from bare-metal to VM. 

Over the next six months, we spun up our new servers and did conversions because we were running server 2008. Once we had everything on the VM's, we split up the new VM servers and transitioned to the server 2019 platform.

We have two IT staff members for deployment and maintenance. I do 90 percent of the maintenance. The other IT person does little things as needed, but Hyper-V requires little maintenance.

By implementing Hyper-V and cutting down on servers, we have seen a cost reduction. If we stuck with the bare-metal servers, we would see an initial cost for the server hardware of about $4,000 or $5,000. And in the long term, we'll save money on electricity and overall server maintenance of the servers. About five years out, we'll either break even or save over the cost of bare-metal servers.

There's no annual cost for the Hyper-V server version 2019. If you add up the other solutions we have on there, it totals up to around $3,000 a year.

I would rate Hyper-V around 8.5 compared to VMware. The ease of use is there, but VMware has more options and scalability. However, VMware has a lot more upfront and yearly costs. Hyper-V is a great solution and an excellent way to virtualize your servers and everything. It's a good fit for a small business.

If you're converting from Hyper-V or vice versa, make sure you run a couple of tests of your conversion strategy. I did run into one little snag the first time. The server wouldn't boot properly, but that came down to a permissions issue. Make sure you thoroughly test any server or VM's you're converting over. Test to see that everything boots back up. Also, make sure all your virtual switches are set up correctly because you sometimes run into some networking issues within the VM if you don't configure those 100 percent correctly.

It is an affordable platform than VMware for hosting older versions of Microsoft Windows like Windows XP and Windows NT.

They should include a few more hardware components for integration with servers. It would work great for the Hyper-V environment. Additionally, they should consider cloud virtualization features. 

We have been using Hyper-V since 2016.

The product worked well for hosting a few Microsoft solutions.

It is a scalable platform. We have 100 users for it.

We have used VMware before.

The initial setup process is easy. It takes about two or three hours to complete. We have to follow the installation documentation. It requires one person to maintain.

The product's price is low. We have to pay a one-time cost.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. I advise others to go for it if they have an interactive environment.

I use the solution for Jira visualization and Jira workload.

The solution is very user-friendly. Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, it is really easy to use and doesn't cost us much.

The feature of native integration with Azure is good.

The solution should improve its native integration with other public cloud solutions.

I have been using the solution for the past 10-15 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. However, we do not have a big cluster. At the moment, we do not have any plans to increase the usage of the solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We did not have any issues at all.

We get ROI on the product.

Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.

If someone plans to implement Hyper-V, they should seek an agreement with Microsoft to get a better value for the product. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

In our company, we develop software internally, and many of our development systems are virtual systems hosted on Hyper-V. Additionally, we have virtual machines for office automation systems such as Exchange Server and Rack Server, which are also hosted on Hyper-V.

The clear cost structure of the solution is its best feature.

In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower. This applies not only to the system performance but also to the virtual machine performance. Particularly, the disk I/O is very poor, in my opinion. Additionally, it is lacking in many features that are offered by tools such as VMware.

I currently have all the features I need. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything I need to add to my wishlist. Moreover, the company I work for is not that big. I am the sole IT personnel in a company with only 30 employees.

I have been using Hyper-V since 2010. I am currently using Hyper-V 2019. Basically, I am a user and a customer of the solution.

Hyper-V is a stable product.

Scaling the solution is not a problem, as increasing the capacity is as simple as adding to the base cost, which results in a doubling of capacity. Personally, I use Hyper-V software, while the rest of the company uses virtual machines.

Apart from Hyper-V, I mainly use Microsoft Exchange as an administrative user to create system accounts and perform related tasks. However, for more technical aspects, I rely on my partner.

For me, the setup of Hyper-V was an easy process, which took only one hour from start to finish. The installation involved simply adding a roll. So for me, the setup of Hyper-V was not particularly a special task.

Cost-wise, what one gets is directly proportional to the price paid. If the need for capacity doubles, then the price also doubles. We get all the licenses for the solution through a third party.

Rather than going with any other solution, I choose to go with Hyper-V because of its very clear cost structure.

I'm not sure if I'm the best person to suggest to you whether to use Hyper-V or not since I think it really depends on your situation. However, let's say we've known each other for ten years as colleagues and talking as friends, if cost is your main concern, then I would definitely recommend using Hyper-V. But if you're looking for high performance, I would recommend against it because it's not as good as other options like VMware.

Considering the performance-related issues of the solution, I rate this solution a six out of ten.

We're using the mail correspondence and other applications which are running using Hyper-V.

The solution offers many useful features. 

It's a very manageable product. 

The deployment was pretty quick. It's also easy to set up. 

It is a stable and scalable solution. 

They could work on lowering the cost of the solution. 

I started using the solution in 2022. I've used it for six to eight months so far.

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. 

There are maybe 400 or more users on the solution, and there are between 300 and 500 users in our environment.

It can actually connect to PC users, and 200 PCs are connected now.

We have used technical support in the past without issue. 

The initial setup is not overly complex, and the deployment time is rather fast. It offers a straightforward implementation. We had some requirements for configuration setups, et cetera, and were able to implement them as required. We had one project set up and then set up another. 

We did not use an integrator or consultant when we set up the solution. We could handle the process ourselves. 

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the solution. It is a bit expensive and could be cheaper. 

We do plan to look into other options in the future. 

The solution is easily manageable, and the setup process isn't too bad. Therefore, I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate the product ten out of ten overall. 

Currently, we use the Windows Server 2022 Hyper-V server.

We started the virtualization and provide two virtualized environments or operating system environments in the Windows Server itself. We run in the virtualized environment under one single Windows Server license. We started our virtualization from one site on Hyper-V.

Most of the workload we usually have is in the Windows Server. We also leverage the Windows Server virtualization feature, allowing us to use the hardware efficiently and get multiple Windows installs based on the license. We use both Windows Server Standard and Data Center Editions. In the Data Center Edition, we can run unlimited virtual machines based on our hardware capabilities.

The generation feature is good. Hyper-V allows us to define generation one and generation two Hyper-Vs with some legacy boot features. I appreciate the easy  generation of virtual machines.

It is straightforward to set up the solution. 

It's a stable product.

We can scale the solution.

It's pretty much issue free, so we haven't needed technical support.

They need to make some improvements to compare to VMware on Nutanix. There should be a center manual console to manage all the Hyper-V servers and cross-host V-motion. There should be clustering, and the virtual data center should be created with that in mind. There should be similar offerings between different services available within the industry.

I'd like there to be a central management console and a central configuration tool to manage and configure multiple Hyper-V services. 

We'd like a template feature to help deploy VMs quickly.

I've been using the solution for more than seven years. 

It works well. It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable only in terms of licensing.

If you have the Data Center Edition license, you can scale up.

We use this product for 50 or more servers.

We do not have plans to increase usage at this time. 

We do not need to take general support from Microsoft. It's not a very complex product. We can troubleshoot ourselves.

I've yet to use a different solution. 

The solution is simple to set up. It's not overly complex. 

One Windows server administrator can handle the deployment and maintenance.

We handled the deployment ourselves, in-house. We did not need any outside assistance. 

Initially, we started our journey with the Alpha virtualization with Hyper-V. We can leverage multiple virtual machines, and we can create them with the help of Hyper-V. On Windows Server, with Hyper-V, we can get two virtual machines of Windows Server. However, we can also create other virtual machines like Linux. We can create a very dense environment that is very valuable to our organization.

The cost of the product actually comes under the Windows server purchase. A Windows Server standard license comes with Hyper-V. A minimum of eight core license units need to be purchased. The costs depend completely on your CPU and core central server.

Before committing to one solution, a new user needs to consider what they might do if, at some point, they need to migrate. Users need to consider sizing also before deployment, as well as disk format types. They should use Thin provisioning before the deployment of a VM, and not use Thick provisioning.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.