Hyper-V Reviews

The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is the replica service.

Hyper-V requires improvement with manageability.

We have been using Hyper-V for two years.

This solution is stable.

We are running Hyper-V on-premise, so the scalability is limited.

We rely on Microsoft inputs for Hyper-V, at times it is a bit difficult to get the information that we want.

The initial setup of the solution is straightforward.

We deployed Hyper-V in-house. We have two people dedicated to the maintenance of the solution.

Hyper-V is part of Windows Server, so there are no extra costs for the product.

Anyone considering implementing Hyper-V into their organization should do so in a way that allows for upgrades at a later stage. 

Overall, I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of 10.

Our organization is a financial institution in the banking industry. We use Hyper-V for network virtualization and storage and application virtualization. There are five or six users of the solution.

The most valuable feature of the solution is storage virtualization.

Hyper-V has limitations. When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention. 

In the next release, I would like to see virtualization replication added.

I have been using Hyper-V for five years.

Hyper-V is scalable.

Customer support for Hyper-V is good. I would rate the support a four out of five.

Positive

No setup of Hyper-V is required. It is a feature of Windows Server 2016 and 2012. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for a UAT environment, for test purposes. We are users and I'm the COO. 

The solution is stable and the cost is reasonable. 

We're missing quite a lot of features on Hyper-V and I'd like to see more flexibility in terms of moving server automation. Unfortunately, the reporting mechanism is not there. They really need to move in the direction of Hyper-V, a hyper-convergence infrastructure kind of solution.

There are sometimes issues with the network but the solution is stable. 

The initial setup was a little complex but not too bad. The deployment was carried out in-house. Along with our end users we have over two million customers who use this solution. 

We pay a one-off licensing fee. The cost is competitive. 

In our search for an HCI solution, we have evaluated several solutions but haven't come to a decision yet. HCI offers much better flexibility, and integration between cloud and in-house sourcing, and is better from a management perspective. What we have now doesn't compare to what HCI offers.

We are currently looking to move to an HCI solution.

I rate this product five out of 10. 

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization.

Hyper-V has improved our organization by enabling consolidation, high availability, disaster recovery, backups, and more. It makes it all simple.

I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center.

Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. Performance can also be better.

We used Hyper-V from 2008 to 2019.

Hyper-V is a stable solution.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. 

I haven't used Microsoft's technical support much.

We have used Citrix and VMware. I would say VMware is simpler for the deployment side of it. Hyper-V is also easy to deploy, but you need to set it up as a role.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. The deployment time depends on the hardware. It can take anywhere from 20 minutes to half an hour. One engineer can implement, manage, and maintain this solution.

It's free with a Windows license, but you can say that there is an ROI in separating workloads.

Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.

I would recommend Hyper-V for small-scale users with one or two VMs. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V a seven.

We use Hyper-V for system virtualization.

The solution is easy to configure.

The management of Hyper-V could improve, there is a lot to improve in that area.

I have used Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The performance of Hyper-V is good.

I have used VMware vSphere, I have found it to be better than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is easy to set up even though the management is a headache. For example, if you want to do integrations or troubleshooting on the platform it's really difficult.

Licensing needs to be a lot easier to manage with Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware is easier.

My advice to other thinking about implementing Hyper-V be aware of the use case that you're going to need Hyper-V for. If you're going to use it on an operational scale, for example, hundreds of Hyper-V hosts, I would recommend rather going with vSphere instead of Hyper-V because the management capabilities of vSphere are better. When you are managing several hundred hosts, it's better to manage within the vSphere environment instead of the system center.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

My primary use case of this solution is for virtualization.

The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is that it's very intuitive.

Setup is very simple, and you can follow along without any documentation.

With Hyper-V, you don't have any issues about making license payments as it's a Microsoft product.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

The primary use case is for customers who want to virtualize their infrastructure, but are on a budget and don't need advanced features. 

This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints. 

Security could be improved and they need to have some sort of a Distributed Resource Scheduler like VMware. Hyper-V doesn't have that kind of a solution. Computing balance could be improved. If you have three or four nodes in a cluster, it should look at the load and based on the algorithm they use, it will place the VMs automatically onto a utilized node in the cluster. Memory ballooning, where unused memory can be cleaned and given to demanded VMs, is a feature I would like to see. 

Taking snapshots could also be improved. It's not straightforward and I had a couple of issues with the Windows server 2000 tool when I took a snapshot of the active directory. When I went to restore that snapshot, I had a problem with active directory sync issues. VMware doesn't have this problem. Even if you're taking a snapshot of the active directory, you can easily revert back and you will not have any trouble with active directory replications. 

I have been using Hyper-V since 2012. 

It is stable, especially if you do Hyper-V clustering. Some customers don't invest much into IT infrastructure, so I design Hyper-V-cluster-based solutions. The only potential problems are attacks on Windows servers, vulnerability issues, or receiving stolen packages could require you to restart it. But it does its job. 

Some of my customers have software assurance from Microsoft, but those who don't have to pay if they need technical assistance. Microsoft Azure has support, but if a customer has deployed the infrastructure on-premises and they don't have software assurance, they will have a problem getting support from Microsoft. 

The installation took about fifteen to twenty minutes for a Microsoft Windows server. 

For deployment, you need expertise in terms of storage, network, and computing. If a customer requires a high performance, we need to look at the computing, processor, and what kind of storage and network switches we're using. You need an expertise team in order to get the best solution. 

I installed this product myself. 

I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints. 

VMware has a lot of features. For example, with vMotion, if an administrator wants to do maintenance, they can do live migrations. Hyper-V does the job and is okay, but it's not the same as VMware. 

If you are on a budget and can't invest too much into IT infrastructure, I recommend Hyper-V. If budget isn't a problem and you're looking for the best solution, I would go for VMware. I have about 85 customers that are using Hyper-V clusters at the moment. Hyper-V is okay for utilizing the file server, clusters, or active directory, but you won't get advanced features. 

I would rate Hyper-V a six out of ten because it is missing a lot of features. 

I'd like to see better predictive diagnostics, so I know what's going on with the machines. 

I've been using Hyper-V since about 2012.

Hyper-V has been pretty good. I have no complaints about the stability. 

It scales well so far, but I think we're nearing the edge of that. We have somewhere in the region of about 200 users.

The support could be better.

I can't say setting up Hyper-V was particularly complicated. The deployment was about two months with the help of some integrators.

I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs.

I rate Hyper-V seven out of 10. It's good for what it does. If you have a small or medium-scale acclimatization, it's an excellent solution. But in terms of scaling larger, you might want to consider something else.