Hyper-V Reviews

We supply Hyper-V for hardware virtualization to customers.

Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

One of the network problems I face is I cannot introduce other security layers on top of Hyper-V as you can in VMware. When it comes to the network the VMware is more flexible than Hyper-V.

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

The solution is stable.

We have not had any issues that we would need to contact the support.

I have previously used VMware solutions.

There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper.

The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.

I would advise customers that are Microsoft users to use Hyper-V if they want to have more cost-efficiency. Additionally, if the customer uses a lot of Windows Server for the guest OS, I will recommend Hyper-V.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Hyper-V definitely has its pro's, some of which are painfully apparent.- The first one is that it is a Microsoft product, which is baked into its Server 2008 and 2008 R2 platforms. You also have the option of a Hyper-V server core, which is only the Hypervisor (this allows for more resources to be dedicated to the individual VM's). - It has Powershell scripting support built in and also excellent Virtual Networking technology.- The VM's are portable. That means that each VM is stored in a single VHD file, which can be transferred to another server and configured and ready to run in less than a minute.- It fully integrates into the Windows environment, allowing access via MMC consoles to change settings and create/administer virtual machines remotely.

The only cons I can really think of are as follows:- Individual licensing costs for each server. - If you aren't using Hyper-V Core and are running Hyper-V on top of the full Server 2008 R2 platform, then you have less resources to allocate to your Virtual Machines. - Except through RDP, there is no way to access the VM's on alternative platforms (like Mac or Linux).I use Hyper-V almost exclusively for all my virtualization needs. From a Network Administrators viewpoint, specifically one catering to a Windows client base, there is no better choice than Hyper-V. Like I said before, it fully integrates into the Windows environment, allowing access via MMC consoles to change settings and create/administer virtual machines remotely.

All in all, Microsoft Hyper-V is an excellent platform and a great competitor for VMWare.

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization. We initially set up 54 servers and three SANs.

The virtual SAN feature is helpful. 

Some of the interfaces need improvements, like the virtual switch or virtual VLAN interfaces.

I have been using Hyper-V for almost six months.

Hyper-V is stable.

Hyper-V is scalable.

Microsoft support is good. 

Hyper-V is a simple product overall, but it's complex to set up. If you want to configure a VLAN, you have to configure all the prerequisites. About 15 people are working with this solution, but you need only three for maintenance. 

We had help from a reseller. 

We pay an annual license for Hyper-V, and it's on the expensive side. 

I rate Hyper-V eight out of 10. The first time you deploy Hyper-V, you need to do a test scenario before moving into a production environment. 

We use Hyper-V for production, testing, and development.

It's a core infrastructure solution, so it's not a user-solution. It's for server virtualization. It's actually deployed virtually for other services that need to deploy virtual machines using it.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future.

I have been using this solution since 2008.

Hyper-V is both stable and scalable; however, I also use VMware which I find to be more scalable and stable overall.

The support with Microsoft is great.

We use VMware, but Hyper-V is much cheaper; however, VMware is more robust, more scalable, more agile for us. It was a mix of both because we wanted to be able to see our way through technology skills.

The initial setup was quite easy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven. If it were a little more flexible and stable, I'd give it a higher rating.

On-premises

My primary use case of this solution is to increase memory for the virtual machine which can be easily done on Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is hosted on OS but if your OS scratches you are in big trouble. In addition, if a host fails, automatically the machine and the virtual machine should boot from another source. Those type of features would benefit Hyper-V.

One to three years.

It is a stable product.

We haven't had a need for technical support.

In comparison to VMware, Hyper-V is much better at restoration and backup. It is also much faster than VMware. 

The setup was quite straightforward. It took 15-20 minutes to deploy. 

I do not have experience with the licensing of the product.

It is definitely the toughest competitor for VMware. There is room for improvement for automation. If that was implemented, it would place Hyper-V on the same realm as VMware.

Our primary use of this solution is for production of our office business needs.

It needs to improve the handling of the amount of storage available. We currently have around 400 users. 

More than five years.

We have 400 users of this solution, and use three staff members for deployment and maintenance.

We previously used a regular Windows 2012 server before using Hyper-V. 

I do not have any comments about pricing or licensing of the product.

The best hypervisor in the market! From Server 2008 to Server 2012 Hyper-v technology has evolved rapidly.As more organisations are using virtualisation, key features like VM replication, Virtual SAN Manager and Live migrations - enable organisations to design fail over and backup solutions, without the need to purchase other products.We have been evaluating Hyper-2012 server core for 3 months, up to now - we have had no issues with any virtual machines or the underlining operating system.

To manage Windows Hyper-V Server 2012, you need an additional server 2012 server. Not very cost effective - I think Microsoft should consider pushing a Hyper-V Management console update to Server 2008 R2 to be able to manage Hyper-V 2012.Hyper-V is definitely our preferred Hypervisor. With its simple configuration console, setting up a Virtual Server is very simple. Multiple Hyper-V servers are easier to manage when integrated into a domain network, when you have a standalone server (especially server core) it can be difficult to manage.

Hyper-V is a must have if you have a subscription with Microsoft’s MSDN program

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.