Hyper-V Reviews

Just to be able to efficiently utilize our power hardware. Gone are the days of one pizza box for a two-core CPU. You've got dozens of cores in one box, and you can't use them all if you just run one thing on one server, so you've got to virtualize it.

The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization.

There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable. But that's going to depend on the bandwidth. You can have an adverse effect as well, if somebody is just using a real small data pipe. Then, they could choke you with Dropbox. They've got to calculate it out.

I didn't give it a 10 out of 10 because sometimes remotely managing it isn't as simple as it could be. Basically, it just involves having to log directly into a box rather than doing something via remote command.

And there's also still a little bit of a learning curve, and as I'm learning additional things with some of the maintenance stuff - then scripting that and automating it - then I won't have to deal with it anymore.

In a way, it's still easier, in my mind, in comparison to when you do have to dig in deep on a VMware box.

Not as of yet. But what's being done is completely unsupported by Dropbox. The way that they view it is just "a file is a file." That's it. So, you synchronize files that are the actual backups - and it's just a file. But using them for a backup solution, they don't support anything other than it being a client application for a user; not as a service or anything else.

Not really, except for when they push out enough data that it requires additional dependencies that they didn't know about. Broke it on a Linux server, but that was just one time.

It's the luck of the draw. It's been as low as a three and as high as an eight out of 10.

VMware - the cost. Because Hyper-V is free, and you get a lot of the solutions that you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars for with VMware. It's free under Microsoft. And they've really polished it in the past two years. It's pretty good.

It's very simple.

I was dropped into it, so I inherited a mostly completed environment, and then I finished it.

They had problems with the VMware running on their servers because they were using unsupported. It was before Dell released firmware for the controllers for the servers to stop complaining. Even though the drives were working fine, the controller was throwing a bunch of errors.

Plus, that version of VMware, at that time, didn't support TRIM, so then it had problems reclaiming space and stuff like that. Then it had to go over to Windows, which under Hyper-V supported TRIM. Now, VMware does support it, so it wouldn't be an issue, but it's already converted over. It's rock solid.

Don't knock Hyper-V until you actually try it.

I get a lot of people from the tech community, saying things like, "Hahaha, you're on Hyper-V?" And I reply, "Yeah. At first, I opposed it, but it's grown on me and I love it." I still run VMware at home, just because I already have it running on in my lab, but if I were to rebuild, I'd do it under Hyper-V. Why not?

You get more features for free.

You've got to actually really try it for a good six months to a year, and then it grows on you. It's like, "Wow! You can do all that?" Yeah. And more.

Hyper-V's gotten a lot better since 2012 and 2012 R2, and now the 2016 is light years again.

We are mainly using Hyper-V in the financial sector.

The ease of use of Hyper-V is the most valuable feature.

Hyper-V could improve the management tools.

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

All the newer versions of Hyper-V are stable.

The solution could improve scalability.

The support from Microsoft is very slow.

The initial implementation was difficult because there are not enough management tools. The time it took was approximately three days.

We installed the Hyper-V on bare-metal hardware, created the VMs, and attached the storage, et cetera.

We have four to five staff members for the implementation of Hyper-V. The maintenance includes server management, creating VMs, and backups.

My advice to others implementing this solution is there are no implementation management tools available, they will have to do it all themselves.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day.

Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update. For example, if you use Hyper-V, you should restart once a month. It is very hard to operate.

Also, it is very slow.

The stability and scalability could be improved. It could be more user friendly as well.

I've been using it for, maybe, three years.

It is not stable. There are problems with backup as well.

It is not scalable.

I am satisfied with technical support.

It is very easy to install, and it can be done in a day.

I installed it myself.

I don't recommend Hyper-V and would rate it at six on a scale from one to ten.

In general, based on my little experience with Hyper-V, I see a lot of obstacles. I think it falls behind the other competitors.

There are several areas that can be improved. The network configuration, for example, can be improved. The storage as well, can be improved. I find it very dependent on the active directory as a service, overall. I think they have to review that. I understand that active directory is an integral part of that infrastructure for authentication and logging, etc..., but it can be an obstacle. I think they should review that mechanism.

They have to review the overall architecture of that solution. It is a Type-2 virtualization, which means it is not bare metal. That is one problem or one issue that has to be reviewed. In my view as an engineer, the best solutions in this domain are those which are bare metal. Those that are deployed directly on the hardware get the most out of the hardware. But in Microsoft, this is not the case, it is implemented on Windows. If something goes wrong with the Windows machine, all the VMs on it are in trouble. And we all know that Windows has always been a target for viruses and bugs. So in my opinion, they have to review that, to remove that design.

I don't personally have strong experience with Hyper-V, but as a company we are reselling it.

Based on my experience, it is stable.

It is not that scalable or flexible.

On a scale from one to 5, I would rate the scalability a three.

The initial setup is easy.

I think Microsoft is a little better in pricing. But as I said, I'm not a pricing person, and I can't speak with great confidence on that. But in general, Microsoft is a little lower than BMI.

I do not highly recommend Hyper-V.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Hyper-V a six.

In terms of advice to people looking to implement Hyper-V, I would tell them not to rely much on the Hyper-V solution in terms of flexibility and scalability. It is a stable solution, but overall, considering the backup, the replication, and the whole range of features that VMR offers, I think that it's better if they look at VMR or other contenders, in this technology.

We are just exploring the possibilities to see if it was a better alternative to VirtualBox, for running on a Windows host.

I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved.

I have only just started using this solution. It's been one to two weeks.

I am using the version with Windows 10 Pro.

It's too early to tell at the moment. We are still new to using Hyper-V.

We have not yet explored this area. At the moment, I am the only user.

I have not contacted technical support.

I am currently using VirtualBox and Hyper-V on different VMs.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install.

It took an hour to get the on-premises system running.

I completed the setup and implementation.

It's still too early to know if I would recommend it or not.

I am still in the processing phase, so depending on how it goes, we may continue to use this solution. At this point, we intend to use it.

With what I know so far, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We can illustrate all of the infrastructure very easily.

There are bugs, and this should be resolved by Microsoft. In the future, I would like to see how the hyper-converged infrastructure works with the technology.

It is a stable product. 

The initial setup was easy. It took approximately 25 minutes to deploy.

The pricing and licensing is fine.

I primarily use it for server virtualization and protection services.

Using cluster with Hyper-V had a major impact on our protection environment. So all applications were virtualized using Hyper-V.

Perhaps improvement should be made when you want to change some configuration on VM's, and you have to shut down the VM in order to do so. A major improvement would be a configuration change. So, when you change the parameter of VM, the other one can still be running.

The product is stable. We have had no problems.

The scalability is good. It is enough for our needs. We are 40 users in our organization. We used a team of five to maintain the solution. 

We have not needed technical support.

For our company it was a good investment.

The price is quite fair. It is not too expensive.

We were looking at other options, such as Azure. But, we decided to stay with the Microsoft Hyper-V.

I would advise other people that this is a good solution.

1. Improved Windows stability

2. Hyper-V stability

3. Live migration

4. Enhanced session mode

5. Clustering

Enhanced Session Mode is a feature thats allow you to copy and past inside the virtual machine.

Live Migration in a virtual machine where you can move across your Hyper-V physical servers with or without user interaction, and in a virtual machine you can move from server to server without downtime.