Hyper-V Reviews

We use this solution to host our corporate infrastructure servers. 

The only issues we have had recently are with Windows updates that are built into the Windows server with Hyper-V. 

In the future, I would like to see a simplification of licensing of this product. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to have more monitoring.

It is very stable. We have not had issues with it crashing itself.

I do not have experience with the technical support. I usually research the answers myself and fix any pending issues.

It was very straightforward for us. We did it in-house and it was very easy.

We have definitely have seen a return on our investment. 

I wish the licensing was simpler and allowed for a greater number of VMs with the Microsoft standard licensing. Overall I think it's fair. The pricing is definitely fair.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful.

It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory.

If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory.

We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI.

It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. 

In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. 

You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem.

It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better.

We have been using Hyper-V for more than five years.

Technical support with Microsoft is crazy because we never get it. If I'm having some issues with Microsoft, opening up a ticket is very difficult even though we have it in Sri Lanka. Even from there, we cannot get the technical support for the marketing stuff. They will give us support, but it's not easy to open up a ticket and get that technical support for the technical stuff. Right now, the best support we can get is from Google.

You can easily use Hyper-V coercion, and It's very good. Hyper-V is good when compared to VMI. It's not easy, but they have so many features, and backing up features and migrations and networking are much easier.

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

We are currently using this solution for Exchange, as a demo controller and an antivirus, as well. We have lots of servers on our Hyper-V.

I think the cluster environment is a good feature of Hyper-V because, if something happens, then it will automatically move to some other mode. This is a great feature of the solution.

Sometimes it is a mess, and it should be something that could be easily fixed. It made us have to deal with fixing the bugs. 

We have over 80 servers on our Hyper-V with one guy handling the deployment. We do have plans to increase our usage in the future. 

The setup was straightforward and easy for our company. The deployment was fast. 

The pricing is not much. We have a very big environment, and pricing is no problem. We did not spend much time looking at other products, though.

Due to our needs, we installed Hyper-V and VMware. It would be nice if there was a link between the HYper-V and the VMware for a test environment. When we cannot keep the two together, everything becomes a problem for the site.

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. 

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.