Hyper-V Reviews

Pros of Hyper-V are- 1) Dynamic memory allocation for the virtual machines by efficient usage real time memory distribution architecture 2) More number of virtual machines per Hyper-V host through VDI technology 3) One of the best features in Hyper V is of live migration of running virtual machines and instances to another server in case of a failure 4) Dynamic I/O redirection using cluster node connectivity 5) Inbuilt Powershell feature to automate backup instances 6) Good virtual network and networking support for enhanced utilization of resources

Few cons of Hyper-V are- 1) Licensing costs 2) Vulnerable to server failure 3) Lacks advanced features of virtualization platform 4) More consumption of CPU, memory and need more disk I/O bandwidth than physical servers

The hypervisor based server visualization product, launched from Microsoft along with Microsoft Server 2008 R2, greatly helps in managing high availability, load balancing, resource sharing, and fail over clustering. It is a reliable solution, from enterprises to small scale industries, to make the best use of server resources and reducing costs. It enables multiple instances of machines to run together on the same server, which maintains redundancy.

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.

On-premises

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. 

On-premises

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. 

On-premises

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.

More than five years.

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. 

• Quick boots
• Fast up time and install

Setup on a DAS can split functions to as many servers as needed improved backups and uptime.

• Cannot copy paste within the app
• Some bugs were not fixable and I had to reinstall core OS

3 Years

No

Customer Service:

Good

Technical Support:

Good

VMware

Straightforward

In-house

Yes

We provide services, such as virtualization, website hosting, and some infrastructure services. We provide all the services to the public companies.

The product is a great option for enterprise-level organizations.

The solution comes in many languages. We can have it set up in Portuguese, for example. 

The interface is quite good.

The setup is pretty straightforward. 

The product can be a bit difficult to use. I find, for example, Citrix to be much less difficult. 

It's hard to calculate how long we've used this solution. It's been a while. 

I also work with Citrix. In my opinion, Citrix has the more complete online material.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not a difficult process. 

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We don't provide products. We are implementors. 

In this company, we work mostly with on-premise solutions, such as hypervisors. For example, the Microsoft Hypervisors, Citrix Hypervisors, et cetera. Here in the company, we don't use exactly cloud solutions, or not entirely cloud. We use many hybrid solutions. 

We didn't exactly choose this product. It was more a question of legacy. We've just kept using it over time. When I came to the company, they were using it, and we've continued to do so.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud