Hyper-V Reviews

We built a private cloud with it.

Live migration, SMB3.

Storage via SMB3.

Yes.

No.

6

Previously used VMware. Switched due to cost.

It was reasonably straightforward.

It's cheap, but not the best.

Vmware was better, but it was more expensive.

Don’t use it for mission critical clouds.

• 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

Scalability Improvements: Support for up to 4TB physical memory, up to 320 Logical Processors, up to 64 nodes cluster which can support 8000 VM's Migrations: Supports many types of migration scenarios such as live migration, live storage migration limited by only hardware capability. Management and Integration: Lots of management tools, integration with system center makes it a backbone of Microsoft's cloud infrastructure.

Apart from windows and some flavors of Linux, it does not support any other virtual guests.

If your infrastructure is based on MS products then this is a hypervisor to go for. Virtualization of some of the components such as domain controllers are supported by Microsoft only on Hyper- V.

• The ROI on Hyper-V is enormous. It is cheaper than any other enterprises visualization tool. • Hyper-V Replica can replace SAN, especially where SAN might be overloaded. • It is dynamic and scalable.

It lacks a built-in cloning function, you have to use the traditional export/import.

Visualization technology brought succor to IT enterprises users. The cost of acquiring multiple servers and its general maintenance has been drastically reduced. One physical or hardware machine can host multiple visual servers Windows Server Hyper-V is one of the best visualization servers in the market today. The new Hyper-V’s dynamic memory feature is a big plus. It can automatically expand the memory allocation to accommodate more workload from different virtual machines. Other attractive features, that the new Hyper-V includes are, Live storage migration, utilization of up to 4TB memory per host RAM, Virtual Machine converter, replica services, RemoteFX, etc. I added the Hyper-V role in Windows Server 2008 R2 without any issue. Installation of the guest server was also smooth. Guest VM backup in Hyper-V is quite simple with great features such as, multiple destinations selection and Backup drive mirroring.

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

The features I find most valuable are utilizing the hardware so there is multiple applications running on one hypervisor. This actually saves money for the user. 

I think there is room for improvement in terms of the cloud solutions. 

One to three years.

The stability of the product is fine. There is no problem. The only issues we have is with stability of the operating system. 

It is scalable. 

The setup was initially not easy, but Microsoft has made a lot of improvements and upgrades, and the integration is supposedly more simple. 

I think it is expensive. I think if they want it to be more competitive, they should lower the price. 

It is a great advantage for any company that is using a Microsoft Windows server.

I think the console could use some improvement for the backups. The features should be improved. I know a lot of people who are considering moving to Hyper-V, but are skittish to do so because you need a system center virtual manager or a specialist to integrate the solution.

More than five years.

I recommend this product due to its high stability. 

It is highly scalable. It is really easy to scale and implement. 

The setup was easy.

The pricing is competitive, and a bit less than other options on the market.

The reason we use this solution is because we can do a lot more with rate configurations, and large span networks. It's a lot easier doing that versus with some of the KVM based hypervisors.

We use it for testing new software. We especially use it for software updates because half of the time we're running an accounting program. It updates, and then breaks something else. This way we can run a couple of different VM's with a setup similar to what we use on all of the desktops. So, that way, you can test it without actually causing downtime.

Some of the things we run have to have a very specific Linux bistro, and you can't get it
all in Hyper-V.

I find the ease of use the most valuable asset of the solution.

An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems.

One to three years.

It is a very stable product.

We previously used a Linux KVM based hypervisor called Proxmox.

The pricing isn't too bad, because you can do the bare metal hyper-visor, and it is pretty fair. Other competitors are more expensive.

Make sure to do your research before you choose a solution. Be sure it fits your needs.