Hyper-V Reviews

At virtualized servers.

It's well integrated with Windows.

It's easy to use. It's also not an additional cost.

The security aspect of Hyper-V is good. It's secure.

Virtualizing Linux isn't as easy as virtualizing Windows. While we're overall satisfied, they could improve Linux support.

I have been using it for three years.

We haven't had any issues with stability in the three years we've used it.

It's scalable. We have two physical servers; we also bought virtual machines and around 10 users. It's in one server room.

I have used VMware before.

The main pros of Hyper-V compared to VMware are that there's no additional cost once you have a Windows license, and it's easier to manage.

The initial setup was straightforward. No challenges.

We installed it immediately after getting the servers. We deployed it using a tool that HP has.

It just took half an hour. One person is required and enough for the setup and deployment process. 

It's not difficult to maintain, but it does require maintenance.

I would recommend it. It's fairly easy to deploy.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to virtualize workflows on physical hosts for various use cases, such as hosting applications and databases. The hosts run Windows OS, with some running Windows Server OS at the endpoint, which allows them to host different workloads, including applications, databases, remote desktops, and other systems. Additionally, we leverage Hyper-V for infrastructure maintenance services, wireless services, and OEM-provided production images. This flexibility lets us choose between buying physical boxes from OEMs or virtualizing their images for our infrastructure.

Hyper-V can expand storage. For instance, if I have a VM running on NetApp or another platform, I can expand the storage without interrupting operations. It is useful when I need to quickly allocate more storage without causing downtime or performing maintenance tasks.

You can use a known physical host and maximize its capabilities with Hyper-V. It can optimize resource utilization on a physical host. Another significant advantage is the ability to create backups of virtual machine images. In case of any issues, you can quickly restore the image or spin up a new virtual machine from the backup. This ensures minimal downtime and faster recovery.

Additionally, you can easily test environments by deploying virtual machines on a separate host. If you need to migrate from a different hypervisor, such as Cisco's, you can perform P2V conversion to transition the workload to Hyper-V. The flexibility and ease of use of Hyper-V make it an invaluable tool for managing virtualized environments

Hyper-V serves its purpose, but some areas may not be as feature-rich as alternatives like VMware ESXi. The resource management capabilities in VMware are more intuitive and efficient for more extensive infrastructures. The difference is in the management of VMs. In Hyper-V, managing VMs can sometimes be more tedious as it requires handling them on a case-by-case basis, whereas VMware offers more streamlined management options.

For high-level management and granular control, VMware ESXi tends to be preferred in extensive virtualized environments. Additionally, VMware has an expensive upfront cost but can offer cost efficiencies in larger deployments due to its scalability and features.

Hyper-V is suitable for smaller environments and may have improved over the years. VMware ESXi often emerges as the preferred choice due to its robust features and management capabilities for larger and more complex virtualization needs.

The integration feature should be added.

I have been using Hyper-V for eight years.

The product is stable. Microsoft solutions have been quite stable once you manage your parts properly.

The solution is scalable. It may not directly translate into immediate returns for the organization but enhances the end-user experience. For instance, when users need to run applications from various vendors like Cisco, the scalability of Hyper-V ensures smooth operations and efficient resource allocation.

The response from Hyper-V support is great. It was quick and helpful because I received a step-by-step breakdown with links to Microsoft documentation for further clarification. Additionally, they offered assistance via a call if needed.

VMware is considered superior in stability, especially for very large enterprises. It offers many features, including robust support for virtual full-time desktops in environments.

As long as you have your Server OS installed or even if it's your endpoint, you need to enable the Virtualization feature. By default, most of the time, it's already turned on within the operating system, so you need to enable it within the VM settings. The setup is much simpler than VMware, which tends to be more complex.

I recommend it for small to medium businesses whose users rely on Microsoft virtualization. You can save costs by leveraging your data center infrastructure. Even larger enterprises have options like licensing up to three VMs per server, which can be extended with data center licensing for scalability. The solution offers flexibility and scalability depending on your infrastructure needs.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

My company needs the product for the virtual machines in our environment. The product is also useful in areas like domain controller and Active Directory.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the support team the tool offers its users.

The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. When I contacted the product's office to raise my concerns about the tool's security, I was told that it would be taken care of in the solution's upcoming versions.

I have been using Hyper-V for two years. My company is a customer of the product.

Only ten percent of the time, there are issues related to breakdowns or bugs in the product.

The product is super effective when it comes to the scalability part. The product also offers super-effective performance.

Around 3,000 people in my company use the product.

The solution's technical support is the best.

I use VMware for orchestration. My company also used to use a product from Microsoft.

The product's initial setup phase is easy, considering that there are online tutorials available.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The product is a bit expensive, but it is worth the money.

The product's price depends on the scale at which it is used in the company.

My company chose Hyper-V over the other solutions, considering the good performance and support that it offers.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

It is not so easy for a person to learn to use the product for the first time.

In terms of handling workloads, the product is able to handle all of my work in the company. The performance of the product is good.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We're using the mail correspondence and other applications which are running using Hyper-V.

The solution offers many useful features. 

It's a very manageable product. 

The deployment was pretty quick. It's also easy to set up. 

It is a stable and scalable solution. 

They could work on lowering the cost of the solution. 

I started using the solution in 2022. I've used it for six to eight months so far.

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. 

There are maybe 400 or more users on the solution, and there are between 300 and 500 users in our environment.

It can actually connect to PC users, and 200 PCs are connected now.

We have used technical support in the past without issue. 

The initial setup is not overly complex, and the deployment time is rather fast. It offers a straightforward implementation. We had some requirements for configuration setups, et cetera, and were able to implement them as required. We had one project set up and then set up another. 

We did not use an integrator or consultant when we set up the solution. We could handle the process ourselves. 

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the solution. It is a bit expensive and could be cheaper. 

We do plan to look into other options in the future. 

The solution is easily manageable, and the setup process isn't too bad. Therefore, I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate the product ten out of ten overall. 

The user interface of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required. Hyper-V's user interface is difficult to use compared to VMware's. Hyper-V also has some hardware limitations. It is not easy to integrate it with other tools, making it an area where improvements are required.

The tool should be improved in some areas, particularly scalability-wise.

A heterogeneous architecture should be introduced in Hyper-V. It is very difficult to convert a physical machine to a virtual machine. Hyper-V should be improved just like VMware. Hyper-V It should introduce a converter that can be used for the conversion of hardware machines to software machines.

I have been using Hyper-V for two years.

My company did not face any issues during the product's implementation phase.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I would not say that it is a totally reasonably priced product as it is merged with our overall costs associated with Microsoft products. We bought some enterprise licenses for our company's data center for Windows Server 2019. The licensing part is bundled with the data center version meant for Windows Server 2019, so the costs are manageable.

I am generally satisfied with the use of the product. The tool has some limited features. It does not very advanced features. We have some other sites in our company, so we can use Hyper-V for some reason, and I cannot share its details with anyone. Our company is okay with the tool but not fully satisfied with Hyper-V if I compare it to VMware.

The tool's most beneficial part for managing our company's virtual environments revolves around the fact that it is included in the data center licenses, so one does not have to buy it separately as it is with the data center version.

The tool is very easy to implement, so we can manage it in our company. We can manage and deploy the tool quickly if it is VMware. With Hyper-V, we can just deploy the tool to meet our needs. In our company, we can easily deploy Hyper-V, which is why we use it on some sites but not all.

The main issue with the tool is our financial constraint. In Hyper-V, we can meet our financial needs, and that is the reason why we use it. Hyper-V. We have many financial constraints with VMware, so we cannot deploy it. VMware is a very good tool, very easy to deploy, very easy to manage, and has a very easy interface and flexibility with the other hardware products while being easy to use the integration features. With the financial crisis in every country, it is very difficult to manage solutions on the cloud.

I recommend Hyper-V to a small organization or company that can easily manage the hassles associated with Hyper-V.

I rate the tool a six and a half out of ten.

I have one host, and I need to run several servers. I created an Active Directory server on it for access and upgrades.

It's very easy to use and very stable.

It is very easy to lear. Anyone with a basic IT background can configure and use Hyper-V with a little bit of knowledge about networking and IP configuration.

Sometimes a server or machine shuts down and doesn't automatically restart. I checked the settings and made some adjustments so that the machine will start when services are stopped. That solved the problem

I've been using it for two years on two servers - one for Active Directory and one for voice.

It's very stable.

On-premises, I use Hyper-V. 

On the cloud, I use VMware.

The initial setup is not difficult at all.

It's very easy to install on the storage or on the server.

I'm in a small company and handle all the IT work.

It's not expensive.

I definitely recommend it. It's easy to use and very reliable.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We are an IT service company. We understand the technology and we provide Microsoft solutions, Linux, and Cisco solutions. We have a 360-degree relationship with Microsoft, Cisco, and two other companies. We are a premium partner with Microsoft. We use Hyper-V for virtualization and the consolidation of infrastructures. It is a cost-saving solution. We currently use 25% physical, and 75% virtual resources via Hyper-V, i.e. a ratio of 2.5 to 7.5. So we are using the virtual aspect to a greater extent.

It has provided a good cost-saving from the management perspective. It's easy to use, and understand. It's definitively great working on Microsoft Hyper-V. It was a great opportunity to really contribute while cutting down our company costs.

I would say that it's easy to use, and cost-effective. These are the two major factors why we like Hyper-V. I would say VMware ESX is the best, but Microsoft Hyper-V also is very good. It's easy to use and it's cost-effective compared to ESX.

Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement. There could also be improvements in virtualization, performance, management, monitoring, reporting, recommendations, integration, customization, and technical support. Performance and up-scaling are the most important areas in need of improvement.

We have experience with Hyper-V for about 10 to 12 years. I'm an IT manager who manages multiples things, like virtualization and email.

It's about 90% stable.

We would give it a scalability rating of 4 out of 5, compared to VMware ESX which in terms of scalability is excellent.

The support is not excellent, but it is very good. It could be improved.

The initial setup is straightforward, it's easy. I did it on my own without assistance.

We are a team of five to six members, who work on this product in-house. 

Microsoft Hyper-V is not expensive and is easy to set up.

We considered App-V for publishing, but it is a costly solution and is not for virtualization technology but as an end-user solution. It is for application publishing. We have also considered VMware ESX. The main difference between VMware virtualization and Microsoft Hyper-V is the VR capabilities of VMware ESX are better, but both are good.

We are very satisfied with Hyper-V. I would rate Hyper-V as 7 out of 10.

This solution is mostly being used to deliver flexibility, high availability, and redundancy to accommodate production demand on an as-needed basis.

The main driver is consolidation, which is then complemented with the above-mentioned items. Hyper-V is a cost-effective platform that helped many companies I've been involved with to reduce data center administration and licensing costs drastically.

Once the platform is in place, it helps to control resources more accurately and on a consumption basis. By using the VMM (Virtual Machine Manager) you have full control of the fabric, workloads, templates and many more resources. Running Hyper-V Core also increases security and reduces update time-frames, which also helped us to increase our uptime and overall service delivery expectations. 

Hyper-V improved the infrastructure drastically, not only from a performance perspective but from a control/administration view as well. This directly affects the products and services offered on the platform. Our customers can increase or decrease resources on their workloads at any given time, which means we give them more control. That positively affects costs, reducing them for the customers. 

In most recent times, the live migration that is available for non-clustered environments was a massive benefit. Microsoft Storage Spaces can be used as an iSCSI provider for Hyper-V, which can help for a cost-effective cluster. Dynamic resource allocation is a great benefit that helps service providers to reduce costs and increase host density. 

I believe further improvement can be made on the cluster manager side, not specifically Hyper-V related. There are some storage problems which do occur in high load systems, especially SQL workloads. These do not necessarily affect uptime, but it can evolve into a larger problem if not attended to. Otherwise, the product is fantastic.

It is very stable. There are some minor problems, as there is with all software applications, but they are not problems that affect the platform in such a way that your customers are affected. If managed properly according to standards and Microsoft's recommendations, it works. It stays online and is very reliable.

Hyper-V is easily scalable. Adding additional hosts, storage or event sharing workloads between clusters (Not sharing the same cluster nodes) is made possible with the recent versions of Windows Server.

I have used Hyper-V since it was launched and upgrading to the newer versions is purely a matter of staying up to date with the latest features to help our customers benefit.

Do not immediately think of massive SANs and expensive servers. Instead, start small then evaluate and test properly to understand how workloads are treated. Microsoft, with Server 2019, gives you a massive number of tools to do this cost-effectively. 

We did evaluate other options before choosing this solution. VMware has always been a good platform but in terms of costs, it is very expensive. The other 'freeware' options are also great but did not tick our boxes in terms of features and contractual agreements.