Hyper-V Reviews

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. 

Currently, we use the Windows Server 2022 Hyper-V server.

We started the virtualization and provide two virtualized environments or operating system environments in the Windows Server itself. We run in the virtualized environment under one single Windows Server license. We started our virtualization from one site on Hyper-V.

Most of the workload we usually have is in the Windows Server. We also leverage the Windows Server virtualization feature, allowing us to use the hardware efficiently and get multiple Windows installs based on the license. We use both Windows Server Standard and Data Center Editions. In the Data Center Edition, we can run unlimited virtual machines based on our hardware capabilities.

The generation feature is good. Hyper-V allows us to define generation one and generation two Hyper-Vs with some legacy boot features. I appreciate the easy  generation of virtual machines.

It is straightforward to set up the solution. 

It's a stable product.

We can scale the solution.

It's pretty much issue free, so we haven't needed technical support.

They need to make some improvements to compare to VMware on Nutanix. There should be a center manual console to manage all the Hyper-V servers and cross-host V-motion. There should be clustering, and the virtual data center should be created with that in mind. There should be similar offerings between different services available within the industry.

I'd like there to be a central management console and a central configuration tool to manage and configure multiple Hyper-V services. 

We'd like a template feature to help deploy VMs quickly.

I've been using the solution for more than seven years. 

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

It is scalable only in terms of licensing.

If you have the Data Center Edition license, you can scale up.

We use this product for 50 or more servers.

We do not have plans to increase usage at this time. 

We do not need to take general support from Microsoft. It's not a very complex product. We can troubleshoot ourselves.

I've yet to use a different solution. 

The solution is simple to set up. It's not overly complex. 

One Windows server administrator can handle the deployment and maintenance.

We handled the deployment ourselves, in-house. We did not need any outside assistance. 

Initially, we started our journey with the Alpha virtualization with Hyper-V. We can leverage multiple virtual machines, and we can create them with the help of Hyper-V. On Windows Server, with Hyper-V, we can get two virtual machines of Windows Server. However, we can also create other virtual machines like Linux. We can create a very dense environment that is very valuable to our organization.

The cost of the product actually comes under the Windows server purchase. A Windows Server standard license comes with Hyper-V. A minimum of eight core license units need to be purchased. The costs depend completely on your CPU and core central server.

Before committing to one solution, a new user needs to consider what they might do if, at some point, they need to migrate. Users need to consider sizing also before deployment, as well as disk format types. They should use Thin provisioning before the deployment of a VM, and not use Thick provisioning.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

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.

The primary use case involves the creation and management of virtual machines. Within this framework, various types of virtual machines can be established, ranging from Windows-based systems to those dedicated to specific applications such as SQL servers.

I appreciate its stability and user-friendly management interface.

The area that requires attention is the noticeable slowdown in performance. A singular interface for administration control, allowing centralized management of all aspects, would be preferable. Enhanced visibility and reporting capabilities are desired for better insights and analysis.

I have been using it for more than fifteen years.

It offers good stability capabilities.

It provides high scalability.

I appreciate the technical support as it is prompt and highly efficient.

We still use Nutanix as well as Hyper-V.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Deployment was done in-house and it was completed in ten minutes.

The license is free.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.