Hyper-V Reviews

I use the solution in my company for hosting the database in SQL Server, which acts as our company's distributor for SQL-based applications.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from how my company uses Hyper-V for replication. The tool helps our company to automatically failover to another host. My company has to indulge in some maintenance on one node or one host, especially when we want to upgrade patching or do some patching on the host so we can stay on our VMs while on another host, and then we do the changes on that host.

The area revolving around operations in the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required. The tool should have reduced operation time.

I have been using Hyper-V for 3 years. I use Hyper-V Server 2019. My company is a customer of Microsoft.

Based on my experience with the product, I can say that my company seems to face some delay in the solution when it comes to the area of replication. The server runs normally in our company, but we are unable to figure out why there is a lag or delay in the replication area, because of which we need to cut down on the replication process and initiate it again.

Around three people in my company use the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

There is nothing extra required for Hyper-V apart from the licenses that one purchases to use Microsoft Windows.

I have been evaluating VMware against Hyper-V. I feel that VMware is better compared to Hyper-V.

I would not recommend others to use the product.

I rate the overall product 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.

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.

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 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.

In our environment, we have a special custom configuration for the Hyper-V switches we use. We have a full-scope VM in our environment and especially for certain Cisco configurations, such as the spam folder in the Hyper-V. It is really difficult to configure from scratch. In this scenario, the agent is really helpful for us, for the restoration. The community edition provides a free, low-cost package solution.

The solution could improve by having virtual restore.

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

The solution is highly stable.

We have ten hosts that use the solution.

The support is very good.

I have previously used VMware and Citrix Xen.

The installation is simple, and it took us approximately 45 minutes.

I did the implementation myself. There is only one senior engineer required for support of Hyper-V.

The licensing costs depend on the environment you have. If you have an environment of less than 10 or 30 VMs, It's nice to have a Hyper-V, but if you have more than 100 or 200, I would recommend using VCenter, VMware virtualization, especially for an on-premise solution.

VMware virtualization is our main solution, but we use Hyper-V because of the licensing and the cost-effective solution, and on the remote offices we only have fewer than 10 servers.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a nine 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.

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.