Hyper-V Reviews

Hyper-V acts as the hypervisor for our virtualization platform. We are using it on a three-tier infrastructure and it manages our VMs that store our files and applications. 

The most valuable feature is that it's an end-to-end solution.

It's not completely stable because your stack becomes bloated.

We have been using Hyper-V since 2008.

Stability-wise, it is okay but not great. I'd say that it works but it's not perfect.

Hyper-V is limited when it comes to scalability. If you have a data center license then you can scale up or down, or use the main virtual machines on the server. However, if you have a normal, or standard license, you can only run two virtual machine instances.

We have approximately 1,000 users.

I have not had much experience with technical support.

We previously used vSphere but we switched because VMware costs a lot and we have a small environment.

The installation and initial setup are very easy. It takes about five minutes to deploy.

We implemented it ourselves. We have three people in our team for deployment and maintenance.

Our licensing fees are paid for as a package with the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. We have to pay for our data center licenses.

This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security.

In summary, this product is not perfect but it works. At this point, we have not yet decided how long we will continue using it. This is something that we'll decide, moving forward.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

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.

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.

I have been making solutions around the Hyper-V bundles for my clients. For example, hyper-converged infrastructure, such as in vSAN and Vsphere for company data centers.

The solution is very powerful, easy to use, user-friendly, and integrates well with Windows. If you are looking for a hundred percent Microsoft environment it would be a good idea to go with Hyper-V. They work wonderfully together.

There are a lot more features and is easier to use compared to previous releases. They were using PowerCLI for the management but now it is all GUI-based which has made it a lot easier to use.

Hyper-V is not a type one hypervisor, such as vSphere. When it comes to Hyper-V, it is a role in Windows Server. Hyper-V could have been much leaner and much more powerful, but it becomes only the Hyper-V part of it. There should be some distribution or limit to Hyper-V, such as in vSphere.

The missing factor or parameter, in Hyper-V and all of the functionality, is a role it plays inside the Windows operating system. You have to enable those roles. That is something not appreciated in a data center because Windows is a general-purpose operating system, not for the sole purpose of doing these types of operations. They could skim down the version of the operating system and have it customized for virtualization, not as a general-purpose operating system.

In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration.

I have been involved with Hyper-V for approximately two years.

The solution is stable in my experience.

The technical support is good because there are a lot of administrators out there in the market who are well-versed in Microsoft technologies.

The installation is straightforward. The installation time can vary depending on if you have preloaded configurations. If you were to do it from scratch then it would take approximately 20 minutes.

Hyper-V is cost-effective and is a one-time purchase. Microsoft has multiple licensing options available, such as a subscription model and an outside purchase model that customers can choose as per their requirements.

I have evaluated VMware vSphere.

Hyper-V is very popular in the market for data centers and most of my clients are using Microsoft in some form or another but it might not be their core ERP.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

This solution is much easier to manage than a bare metal machine. It is so easy to manage something through the virtual machine.

The live migration feature needs improvement.

The stability is acceptable for us. We do not have problems with it.

It is scalable. We are not such a big company, but it suits our needs. We have less than 500 employees using this solution. We have three system administrators maintaining the solution. 

We previously used VMware and then moved to Hyper-V. We did so primarily because we already had an agreement with Microsoft. 

The initial setup was easy. It took us about a year to deploy because we had to convert 90% of the bare metal machines to Hyper-V.

We have an agreement with Microsoft so this came with the solution. The pricing is okay for us. 

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.