Hyper-V Reviews

What I understand from our people is that it's certainly better now than it was a few years ago. They keep improving. 

The pricing is pretty good. 

My understanding is it's easy to set up.

The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey.

We could probably live without it since we are a relatively small operation, however, vCenter is very convenient. vMotion and so forth are nice to be able to do. However, in order to be able to do the counterpart to that in the HyperVision world, suddenly the cost differential diminishes dramatically. We're not considering a change anytime soon, yet things have changed even from the last two years ago when we last looked at this.

I don't have many insights on stability. I have read a few things, however, it's not really my space. 

Across all of our clients, we probably have a few hundred in use, however, the number of instances of our application that are operating on those virtual servers, I don't know. 

The only data point I have there in relation to the initial setup is a conversation with a guy who spends 90% of his time supporting VMware organizations. He's had some Hyper-V experience. He says, "It's straightforward and I see it growing." That's somebody who's in that who space telling me that just the last week.

The pricing is a function of how many cores you have or how many processors you have. Since we're a Microsoft partner and use tools to create and maintain the software that we sell subscriptions to, we get very attractive pricing. If whatever their counterpart to the vCenter licensing weren't an issue, it would probably be 20% of what we pay for VMware.

When you add the vCenter, counterpart back in, however, it comes to be probably 80%-85% of what you actually need. The last 10% or 15% is where it gets pricey. That's a lot to cover for us to do unless there's some other serious functional advantage - and our guys haven't seen that yet.

I'd rate Hyper-V a five out of ten. I'm not a user of it, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to rate it, however, the part of it that I was most interested in was the pricing notion. Microsoft does all sorts of interesting pricing things. I'm sure they have a good reason for doing it, however, to say, "We'll give you 80% of what you need for almost nothing and if you want the last 20%, you got to give us your left kidney" seems a little unusual.

I work in an environment where we are required to use them, as well as for DevOps and a few other things like Helios and similar things. As a result, I use it for DevOps testing, infrastructure, and implementation within the product areas of my clients.

The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features.

The WSUS could stand to improve a little bit. It is also foggy at times. Again, I use a wide variety of products and services, but going through each one would take much longer, but WSUS is an awesome Microsoft product that could use some improvement in terms of reporting tools and such. Even the additions and servers work is more difficult. Even the manual add is difficult, and reporting occasionally breaks into the endpoints, but that could be one to five servers when I'm checking a hundred to 200 servers.  I suppose it's insignificant, but when it causes problems with those minor details, it can be difficult. But, aside from that, it works well.

It does what it needs to do and is adequate for the time being. It completes tasks such as replication cycles and other similar tasks. That's probably the only way it can be. In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication. If it could have been a simpler process, or if there was another way they could have done it, it would be beneficial. For example, if I'm doing site-to-site replication, I would normally have to do that in terms of bandwidth; Cisco has some, and they have some different tools that would enable the packages to be smaller and faster, but maybe just Microsoft takes a while to do the site-to-site replication.

I have been working with Hyper-V for approximately 15 years.

This solution is used by 10 administrators, and the product itself has 500,000, or 600,000 users.

We have pretty good in-house expertise, we haven't needed to reach out for actual technical support.

I test products ranging from VOIP to Microsoft to virtualization, VMware, and Hyper-V. I am always testing products and then deciding whether to put them into production for use or scale operations.

In the last year, I would say it has been a voice over IP products as well as a couple of SBC products. This is also true for VM testing and Microsoft products, such as Hyper-V, and a couple of software for voice over IP integration.

Microsoft, as well as perhaps eight or nine others.

I also work with DevOps.

We haven't used the VMware solution to its full potential, and the reason for that is that the software that is currently used on that platform lacks certain features that would allow us to use VMware to its full potential, but it resides on the VMware platform.

In order to obtain the products, we must go through a third-party vendor. We can't go directly to Microsoft.

I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

We have a project for disaster recovery. We are using an arc server. We have to use the basic server, each biometric server, in the virtualization environment. In the virtualization environment, we are using Hyper-V. In the software, in the arc server, they get the image from the metal and put it into the Hyper-V environment.

It is familiar. It's very comfortable with Windows. I can configure it easily, with no hassle. That's the main thing I have seen is that the licensing, when we talk about the standard version, they're giving the rule license for free. That is a good benefit for assembly companies.

We can use the solution for free when you want to try it out. 

The implementation process is simple. 

We haven't had any difficulties with the solution. We're happy with it. 

Sometimes there's a bit of slowness in the VMs. The performance could be a bit better.

We'd like to see a bit more done with the migration capabilities. 

The solution needs to offer better local or regional support. 

I've dealt with the solution for five or six years. 

We'd like to see the performance improve a bit. 

In our experience, for the most part, the solution is reliable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. 

There are five people directly using the solution. I'm not personally using the solution on a daily basis. 

It is scalable and easy to expand. 

Technical support has been a bit slow for us. Sometimes, due to regional time changes, there are issues. Therefore, when I raise a ticket for an issue, it takes time. We are in Sri Lanka, and there is no regional support here. We'd like them to have more regional support. 

Neutral

We've also worked with VMware and Sangfor. The main difference is that the Hypervisor should be not at the OS level. It should be at the hardware level. That's the main thing Microsoft has to improve.

In VMware, we saw they have VMotion. In the Hypervisor, that feature is not there. We didn't manage to transfer some images, We would have to do it manually. It should be automatic. That would be added to Hyper-V.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment was quick. It took 15 to 20 minutes. 

I'd rate the solution five out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

We don't really need any maintenance to be done on the product. Once a month, Microsoft may provide us patches, and we tend to implement those, However, that's it. We put those in place to protect us from security issues. 

We did have help in the sense that we searched the internet for assistance and answers to our questions. We did not engage with a vendor. We handled the setup ourselves. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing of the solution. The cost may be a bit higher than VMware, however.

We are service integrators.

We are working with the latest update.

I'd advise that a potential new user should look into their requirements. It's difficult to change a product once it has been issued. You need to know what you want. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

Hyper-V doesn't have a lot of features and is limited compared to other virtualization software.

I've been working with Hyper-V for more than ten years.

Hyper-V is not stable - we've had many errors and have had to do a lot of patch fixes for it.

Hyper-V is scalable.

The initial setup was very easy.

Hyper-V is free-of-charge.

Hyper-V is affordable, but if you have the budget, I recommend going with VMware. I'd rate Hyper-V as five out of ten.

Hyper-V is used to virtualize machines. You install the latest version of Microsoft Windows Server on your hardware, and you install Hyper-V in the Microsoft Windows Server. You can now install multiple virtual servers within Hyper-V. They all can have different functionality.

The servers can be used for many things, such as file servers, ERPs, and web servers. All of this was not available before the advent of virtualization. With virtualization it's easy with one hardware machine, you can have several servers.

Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 20 years.

Hyper-V is a stable solution, but not as stable as VMware.

The solution has good scalability.

The server is accessible to all the users that need to have access to the network resources.

The in-house Microsoft specialists will attempt to resolve any issues we are facing and if they are not able to do it, we escalate to the head office. If the head office is not able to do assist with a resolution, then they escalate to Microsoft for the final support. The Microsoft support has been very good and this is why we are still with Microsoft.

I have previously used VMware. 

VMware may be a better solution than Hyper-V because Hyper-V is a bit more sophisticated and complex. VMware is not as complex. However, the best option depends on the company and what the business wants. That's what we determine, what is best for us. We are using Hyper-V because we do not need to get a separate license in our Microsoft system.

The implementation of Hyper-V is more difficult than VMware.

The deployment time depends on the number of servers you have in total but to deploy one of the servers, would take approximately 15 minutes. You have to, first of all, start with the installation of the server, and do all the conversion. It could take you close to four hours, depending on the speed of the machine.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We have certified Microsoft specialists as part of our team. If you did not have them we would use an outsourced implementation.

In Nigeria, we have three to four people managing the solution, but in other places, the number could be different. For example, in Ghana, we have five managing the solution. 

There is a license to use this solution and it is an annual purchase.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

We are partners with Microsoft. We install 50% of VMware and 50% the solution from Hyper-V, depending on the customer's request.

Mid-level businesses who want to create their own data center, and they are using other Microsoft systems. 

Hyper-V and VMware are similar. However, Hyper-V is less expensive. Hyper-V also has a tight integration with Azure. This means that you can have some VM on Azure and some VM on premises, and you can move a VM from Microsoft data center to a local data center on the customer's side.

Hyper-V could benefit with improvements to their management interface. Also, there are some features that are better on other solutions. For example, VMware is easier to create 3D acceleration than on Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is quite stable. I do not have any issues.

The biggest cluster we have in the field is a node cluster.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware. You can deploy the solution in a matter of hours.

Our customers consider other options, however for mid-level businesses who want to create their own data center, Hyper-V is easier and less expensive than using both VMware and Microsoft Windows server for VMware for Veeam.

VMware has some features that are better. It is easier to create 3D acceleration, however the licensing model is not good.

I would rate Hyper-V an 8 out of 10.

We usually use Microsoft Hyper-V for very small customers that don't have the budget for another library or hypervisor. We use Hyper-V when the customer has only one or two virtual machines. It's typically bundled with the Windows Server operating system, so we can provide virtual machines for free. 

In Malaysia, we started the cloud journey in 2020. Most people were looking for services, and many customers wanted to migrate to the cloud immediately. They just look forward and make some comparisons. If you say, "I want to migrate to a cloud," typically, our customers will ask for AWS as a primary choice, followed by Microsoft Azure.

The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host.

VMware is more stable than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V's scalability or stability is okay. The problem is updating the host. Sometimes we have to schedule downtime for the entire machine to boot up, and the Windows update process takes a long time on the loading stream. It causes a lot of downtime for the customers. Hyper-V has more requirements to scale up compared to VMware. 

Only about 15 percent of our customers use Hyper-V. Most use VMware. VMware is much more robust than Hyper-V. If customers need high availability or more stability, we tell them to go with VMware. If cost is an issue, they can opt for the VMware Essentials Kit, which is the cheapest. 

Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system. We can do anything on top of it without any other computer. 

VMware can't do this. You must have a console server, and then you can use the web to enter to the VMware to do the configuration. Hyper-V can still be configured inside the host operating system, which is more convenient.

We don't have a dedicated team just for Hyper-V. We just have a Microsoft support team. This is a Microsoft product.

The time to value for Hyper-V is shorter than VMware because the customer will typically purchase a Windows Server license with the hardware, so it will be faster.

I think Hyper-V is much cheaper for a small or medium-sized business. If the customer is running VMware and using Windows Server, we still have to purchase a Windows Server license plus the VMware license. Hyper-V will be cheaper if it's just a small deployment for one or two virtual machines.

I rate Hyper-V six out of 10. Hyper-V is okay if customers are comfortable with it and don't require high availability. 

In our environment, we have a special custom configuration for the Hyper-V switches we use. We have a full-scope VM in our environment and especially for certain Cisco configurations, such as the spam folder in the Hyper-V. It is really difficult to configure from scratch. In this scenario, the agent is really helpful for us, for the restoration. The community edition provides a free, low-cost package solution.

The solution could improve by having virtual restore.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately five years.

The solution is highly stable.

We have ten hosts that use the solution.

The support is very good.

I have previously used VMware and Citrix Xen.

The installation is simple, and it took us approximately 45 minutes.

I did the implementation myself. There is only one senior engineer required for support of Hyper-V.

The licensing costs depend on the environment you have. If you have an environment of less than 10 or 30 VMs, It's nice to have a Hyper-V, but if you have more than 100 or 200, I would recommend using VCenter, VMware virtualization, especially for an on-premise solution.

VMware virtualization is our main solution, but we use Hyper-V because of the licensing and the cost-effective solution, and on the remote offices we only have fewer than 10 servers.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a nine out of ten.