Hyper-V Reviews

We primarily use the product for multiple servers and for Dynamics AX, for example, the routing server, the load balancer, the application server, and stuff like that.

The initial setup is very easy.

The scalability is okay.

The performance of VMware was better, which is why I've moved away from Hyper-V.

The operating system is very, very heavy. Sometimes the system is pretty slow. Basically, the iOS performance is very slow, as compared to VMware. They must make the OS as simple and as smooth as they can to make it more user-friendly and faster.

The product is quite expensive.

I've been using the solution for about one year. 

The performance isn't that great. If can be slow. 

The stability is okay. I'd describe it as between 50 to 60% stable. 

The scalability is decent. I'd say that it can scale to 60 to 70%.

We've had so many issues, however, we didn't really ask for help from Microsoft. We mostly did a lot of googling and worked to figure things out on our end. 

I've recently moved over to vSphere. 

The product is not difficult to set up. It's not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any problems with its implementation.

The first time I did an implementation, I needed help from Microsoft. They assisted us originally.

The solution is quite expensive when you compare it to other products. Microsoft solutions aren't cheap. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I have used the Hyper-V for Dynamics AX for a while, however, recently I moved to a virtual machine, VM.

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. It's not the worst, however, it certainly is not the best either. 

I would recommend Hyper-V to users, especially if they are dealing with a Microsoft OS.

The solution is server virtualization software. We're using it to create virtual servers on our hosts and assign roles to each server separately. That's basically what a virtualization server does.

The solution's ease of use is the most important feature. It is very easy to use and implement. 

It has very good fail-over features. You can have servers running in a fail-over cluster and whenever one server fails, you can migrate the workloads to the second one. This is also a very important feature to avoid service downtime or to minimize it at the very least.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward for the most part.

Microsoft has documentation that is easy to find, helpful, and readily available. 

The stability is pretty good.

The solution can scale.

The solution has already improved for us. We have the older version, which was released in 2012, or the end of 2012. There were two releases after that, however, we haven't updated due to the fact that the upgrade costs are too high, and therefore we've migrated to Hyperflex.

The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory.

If you have other virtualization solutions you have about 95% or 99% of the resources of the host available to you to assign to a virtual server. However, with Windows, that number is less than 95% and is more like 90%. There is a margin reserved for the server itself. That's a downside.

The solution needs to improve integration with hyper-converged infrastructure solutions, or SGI solutions. We were going with SGI for our next virtualization solution. I read reviews about the Hyper-V causing issues with SGI. When we decided to go with SGI, I decided against going with Hyper-V due to the integration issues that it had. 

I've been using the solution for about five years or so at this point, give or take. It's been a while. I'm currently using it now as well.

The solution is basically stable. There are not many faults happening in the four or so years that we had it running. Whatever happened was basically either due to the active directory or due to environments like the server itself that had power loss one time. It shut down and we needed to restart it. However, basically, that's an environment issue, not an issue inherent to Hyper-V itself. Otherwise, Hyper-V runs smoothly.

There is a small overhead of resources reserved for the server itself. Other virtualization solutions have less overhead than that. However, due to the fact that Hyper-V is running on Windows Server, there is a margin of overhead reserved for the server itself. 

For the most part, however, it's reliable. 

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with relative ease.

Due to the fact that it's a virtualization solution, our IT team of three is managing it. However, as an ISP, we host some very important client services as well on the same solution. That means the number of users can go up to 100,000. From a management perspective, the management is just the three of us in the IT department.

We do not plan to increase usage at this time. Currently, with our version, we're planning to phase it out in our company within the next few years. That's mostly due to the fact that upgrade costs are too high and the solution is already an older generation, and we have decided to buy a fully new solution on new hardware. It will be Hyperflex.

We haven't contacted Microsoft for support. We've worked with several Microsoft partners for support and they were responsive. However, we haven't reached out to Microsoft directly.

There is good documentation from Microsoft and this can help with troubleshooting as well. 

Windows support in general is available online. It's as easy as Googling the issue that you have and you'll readily find solutions. It's not complicated. That part is positive. Other solutions are either too complicated or not very popular. In other products, if you need any support, you must either contact the vendor themselves or look for professional support.

The solution is straightforward if you know how to use Windows Server. Hyper-V is basically a role on Windows Server. Therefore, you can use Windows Server for many roles on networking, on the active directory. Hyper-V is just one of them. You can just install the role and enable it and that's it. Basically, it's up.

The deployment is quite quick. It's a part of the server.

Initial setup process:

after installing the Windows Server, you select 'Add Roles & Features' from the 'Manage' Menu on the 'Server Manager' Window.

then you step through the wizard, selecting the 'Hyper-V' Role along with any features Windows requires for that role. a restart is recommended even if it's not required.

to implement a solution with redundancy, you can install the 'Failover Cluster' Role with the Hyper-V Role on 2 (or more) identical servers, and create a Failover Cluster out of the servers where VMs would "Fail Over" between servers.

then you need to set up a virtual switch to connect the VMs. you should set up at least 1 external switch to enable internet access and remote reachability for the VMs.

then you can create VMs and run them.

The costs in regards to upgrading the solution are quite high and it deters customers from changing versions.

The old solution in 2012 was charging at a cost per server and the pricing was good at the time. In 2016, Microsoft upgraded the licensing, or changed the licensing scheme to per CPU within the server. Basically, if we wanted to upgrade to 2016, we would have had to pay double again for the same software. Therefore, we decided to go with another solution.

The solution offers perpetual licensing.

We are just a customer or end-user.

We're using the version that is on Windows Server 2012 R2.

I'd advise other companies that this solution is to be considered, compared to other solutions. That said, there are solutions that are better and it depends on the scenario. It depends on the scenario, the scale you have, the implementation, et cetera. Companies should compare it to other solutions. Maybe the cost is high and performance isn't as good for them. I would suggest companies go with the VMware solution. That said, again, it depends on the scenario. In some scenarios, where a company is heavily dependent on Microsoft and Windows, it would be a better solution for them.

If most of your workloads are Windows Server, then buying a server host would give you free licensing for those workloads. The licensing would be included. Otherwise, if you buy another solution then you have to pay separately for each Windows license. The cost would be again, very high. For us, I can say maybe 70% or 80% of our workloads are Linux and other OS's, not Windows. It wouldn't make sense for us to go with Hyper-V. The cost would be too high. If you are implementing heavily into Windows Server, go for Hyper-V. If you have a different application or different type of application, then you'd be better off going with another solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are an IT service company. We understand the technology and we provide Microsoft solutions, Linux, and Cisco solutions. We have a 360-degree relationship with Microsoft, Cisco, and two other companies. We are a premium partner with Microsoft. We use Hyper-V for virtualization and the consolidation of infrastructures. It is a cost-saving solution. We currently use 25% physical, and 75% virtual resources via Hyper-V, i.e. a ratio of 2.5 to 7.5. So we are using the virtual aspect to a greater extent.

It has provided a good cost-saving from the management perspective. It's easy to use, and understand. It's definitively great working on Microsoft Hyper-V. It was a great opportunity to really contribute while cutting down our company costs.

I would say that it's easy to use, and cost-effective. These are the two major factors why we like Hyper-V. I would say VMware ESX is the best, but Microsoft Hyper-V also is very good. It's easy to use and it's cost-effective compared to ESX.

Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement. There could also be improvements in virtualization, performance, management, monitoring, reporting, recommendations, integration, customization, and technical support. Performance and up-scaling are the most important areas in need of improvement.

We have experience with Hyper-V for about 10 to 12 years. I'm an IT manager who manages multiples things, like virtualization and email.

It's about 90% stable.

We would give it a scalability rating of 4 out of 5, compared to VMware ESX which in terms of scalability is excellent.

The support is not excellent, but it is very good. It could be improved.

The initial setup is straightforward, it's easy. I did it on my own without assistance.

We are a team of five to six members, who work on this product in-house. 

Microsoft Hyper-V is not expensive and is easy to set up.

We considered App-V for publishing, but it is a costly solution and is not for virtualization technology but as an end-user solution. It is for application publishing. We have also considered VMware ESX. The main difference between VMware virtualization and Microsoft Hyper-V is the VR capabilities of VMware ESX are better, but both are good.

We are very satisfied with Hyper-V. I would rate Hyper-V as 7 out of 10.

I use the Hyper-V for migration for the machines. We move our systems to Hyper-V and then from physical to virtual. I currently run on the physical server. I'm migrating this server from the physical to the Hyper-V virtual machine.

The solution has an easy setup.

The pricing is pretty good.

There are usability issues with Hyper-V's manager. VMware has a much better system, but it's a much more expensive solution.

The interface is not uniform at all, which makes the manager difficult to use. It's not very convenient and isn't smartly designed. They need to reimagine it to make it more effective.

There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager.

It might be helpful if Microsoft could recommend the use of STV. Then, at least you can use Nano products to manage the Hyper-V server. Currently, I don't use STV. I'm not too familiar with this product. It would be helpful if Microsoft could provide some guidance as to its usage and the options available and why users might opt for them so that we have a better understanding of what we can do and how we can use the services on offer effectively.

I've been using the solution for five to six years now.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't crash. There aren't bugs and glitches that affect its functionality. It's a reliable product.

There's a team of us working with the solution. We have about five or six people who work with it regularly. We use it weekly.

The solution is very scalable. You just need to use the default function and it can build on the high reliability fro there. If a company needs to expand the solution, they can do so quite easily.

Microsoft's technical support is very good. Their team is very responsive and kind. We're more than satisfied with the level of service they provide. They're excellent.

I'm also familiar with VMware, however, I find it to be much more expensive than Hyper-V, even though I believe their interface is far better.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's easy. It's not complex at all.

Deployment doesn't take long at all. You just need to download the Hyper-V system. In some cases, you may need to install Windows onto the server. I can get it up and running and start using it almost immediately. It's that simple.

You only need one person to handle maintenance.

I can install and deploy the Hyper-V and the virtual machine by myself. I'm a systems administrator. I don't need the help of consultants or systems integrators. I have enough knowledge to manage everything on my own.

The solution is not as expensive as other options, for example, specifically VMware.

We're just Microsoft customers. We aren't partners and don't have a special relationship with the company and we don't sell Microsoft products. I focus on server virtualization. I work with both VMware and Hyper-V.

We're working with the 2019 and 2017 versions on Windows.

I'd recommend the solution. It's very good. I'd rate it eight out of ten overall.

The product is easy to manage. It improves our VM management. 

The solution should be compatible with different systems. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Hyper-V's scalability is good. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has two users. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward. We have five resources to manage its deployment and maintenance. 

Hyper-V's deployment is in-house. 

The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual. 

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. 

I use it personally for training. I do some testing for myself. I use it for virtualization and have used it to compare testing functionality. 

It has not helped my organization. I just use it for testing.

The solution works well on Windows.

The product, overall, works well. 

I like the functionality. Users can use it in a hybrid scenario.

The virtualization capabilities are good.

When it comes to Hyper-V, the worst thing is it's based on the Windows operating system. For the installation of Hyper-V, you're supposed to install the right operating system. For me, it's strange.

I have some experience with the solution, however, I haven't used it for too long. I've used it for the last 12 months, at least. I might have used it for six months in total. 

I'm not sure which version I'm using. It was the basic setup on the 2016 servers.

I use the solution for my personal projects. 

We were using Hyper-V as a part of our ERP system, proxy servers, and some very minimalistic workstations.

If I want to create a cluster of around five to 10 physical servers Hyper-V does not get integrated with any kind of virtual sense, such as vSense.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Hyper-V a ten out of ten.

I am not able to scale the solution the way I want and that is why we are migrating to VMware.

I rate the scalability of Hyper-V a four out of ten.

I have used the support one or two times for post-implementations and they're very helpful and skilled.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is easy compared to vScaler. It did not take more than two or three days for setting up the vendor cluster.

Our in-house team did the deployment of the solution.

We have received a return on investment. However, we had a better result with vScaler.

We evaluated Citrix solutions and Open Linux with our integration team. We choose Hyper-V because we have Microsoft Windows systems.

I recommend this solution to others if they have a cluster of around four or less than 10 servers. However, if they want to have higher-level clusters and integrated service solutions, they will have to look at other options.

I rateHyper-V a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to provide visualization for our two main server clusters; one that hosts most of our production virtual machines, and another that hosts Active Directory and the Exchange platforms.

We appreciate how easy this solution is to implement on standalone severs.

Some of the license options available with this product allow for upgrades to be carried out without having to incur extra charges.

We would like to have a cloning function added to this product.

We have been using this solution for six years, and are using the 2012 R2 release version.

We have found this solution to be quite stable in our experience.

This solution is scalable if the new server, or new node, is prepared identically to the existing cluster that it will be added to. The product also requires the same user accounts and service accounts that exist currently to be created, and for some shared storage to be in use.

The support for this solution is mostly good; they are reactive and always solve small issues. However, we have had some problems with more complicated issues taking a long time to be fixed.

The initial setup of this solution on a standalone server is quite straightforward. However, if you want to create a cluster of hosts, then you have to configure a large number of requirements and liaise with a lot of different systems teams, which makes it challenging.

This solution was implemented using a team provided by our third-party reseller.

We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one.

We would recommend that any organization considering this solution looks at the range of software they are currently running, to ensure complete compatibility and allow for easy migration to this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.