Hyper-V Reviews

I use Hyper-V for virtualization.

I've been using Hyper-V since 2012.

We've had many issues with Hyper-V's stability, including resource crunches and memory leakage.

It's straightforward to scale Hyper-V, but the automation isn't great. Hyper-V doesn't understand 80%/20%, so you need another technical resource to work on the coding voice, and we had to deploy a script for that.

Hyper-V's technical support is good - they're responsive and sort cases based on criticality and category, so they get dealt with quickly and by the correct team. The only thing I didn't like was that we had to send them log collections from our data center to review.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward as the deployment was done through the SCVM Manager. This allows the user to create virtual machines without any need for IT support. Deployment is nothing but installing the operating system on one physical server, so it takes between an hour and a half and two hours, and altogether, the project takes a month to a month and a half.

Hyper-V is included in the Microsoft Azure license for no extra cost. However, they charge for technical support calls on an hourly basis.

I would recommend Hyper-V to others because it has good capacity and requires little maintenance. I would give Hyper-V a rating of eight out of ten.

We have a project for disaster recovery. We are using an arc server. We have to use the basic server, each biometric server, in the virtualization environment. In the virtualization environment, we are using Hyper-V. In the software, in the arc server, they get the image from the metal and put it into the Hyper-V environment.

It is familiar. It's very comfortable with Windows. I can configure it easily, with no hassle. That's the main thing I have seen is that the licensing, when we talk about the standard version, they're giving the rule license for free. That is a good benefit for assembly companies.

We can use the solution for free when you want to try it out. 

The implementation process is simple. 

We haven't had any difficulties with the solution. We're happy with it. 

Sometimes there's a bit of slowness in the VMs. The performance could be a bit better.

We'd like to see a bit more done with the migration capabilities. 

The solution needs to offer better local or regional support. 

I've dealt with the solution for five or six years. 

We'd like to see the performance improve a bit. 

In our experience, for the most part, the solution is reliable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. 

There are five people directly using the solution. I'm not personally using the solution on a daily basis. 

It is scalable and easy to expand. 

Technical support has been a bit slow for us. Sometimes, due to regional time changes, there are issues. Therefore, when I raise a ticket for an issue, it takes time. We are in Sri Lanka, and there is no regional support here. We'd like them to have more regional support. 

Neutral

We've also worked with VMware and Sangfor. The main difference is that the Hypervisor should be not at the OS level. It should be at the hardware level. That's the main thing Microsoft has to improve.

In VMware, we saw they have VMotion. In the Hypervisor, that feature is not there. We didn't manage to transfer some images, We would have to do it manually. It should be automatic. That would be added to Hyper-V.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment was quick. It took 15 to 20 minutes. 

I'd rate the solution five out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

We don't really need any maintenance to be done on the product. Once a month, Microsoft may provide us patches, and we tend to implement those, However, that's it. We put those in place to protect us from security issues. 

We did have help in the sense that we searched the internet for assistance and answers to our questions. We did not engage with a vendor. We handled the setup ourselves. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing of the solution. The cost may be a bit higher than VMware, however.

We are service integrators.

We are working with the latest update.

I'd advise that a potential new user should look into their requirements. It's difficult to change a product once it has been issued. You need to know what you want. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We are partners with Microsoft. We install 50% of VMware and 50% the solution from Hyper-V, depending on the customer's request.

Mid-level businesses who want to create their own data center, and they are using other Microsoft systems. 

Hyper-V and VMware are similar. However, Hyper-V is less expensive. Hyper-V also has a tight integration with Azure. This means that you can have some VM on Azure and some VM on premises, and you can move a VM from Microsoft data center to a local data center on the customer's side.

Hyper-V could benefit with improvements to their management interface. Also, there are some features that are better on other solutions. For example, VMware is easier to create 3D acceleration than on Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is quite stable. I do not have any issues.

The biggest cluster we have in the field is a node cluster.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware. You can deploy the solution in a matter of hours.

Our customers consider other options, however for mid-level businesses who want to create their own data center, Hyper-V is easier and less expensive than using both VMware and Microsoft Windows server for VMware for Veeam.

VMware has some features that are better. It is easier to create 3D acceleration, however the licensing model is not good.

I would rate Hyper-V an 8 out of 10.

The product is easy to manage. It improves our VM management. 

The solution should be compatible with different systems. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Hyper-V's scalability is good. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has two users. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward. We have five resources to manage its deployment and maintenance. 

Hyper-V's deployment is in-house. 

The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual. 

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. 

What I understand from our people is that it's certainly better now than it was a few years ago. They keep improving. 

The pricing is pretty good. 

My understanding is it's easy to set up.

The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey.

We could probably live without it since we are a relatively small operation, however, vCenter is very convenient. vMotion and so forth are nice to be able to do. However, in order to be able to do the counterpart to that in the HyperVision world, suddenly the cost differential diminishes dramatically. We're not considering a change anytime soon, yet things have changed even from the last two years ago when we last looked at this.

I don't have many insights on stability. I have read a few things, however, it's not really my space. 

Across all of our clients, we probably have a few hundred in use, however, the number of instances of our application that are operating on those virtual servers, I don't know. 

The only data point I have there in relation to the initial setup is a conversation with a guy who spends 90% of his time supporting VMware organizations. He's had some Hyper-V experience. He says, "It's straightforward and I see it growing." That's somebody who's in that who space telling me that just the last week.

The pricing is a function of how many cores you have or how many processors you have. Since we're a Microsoft partner and use tools to create and maintain the software that we sell subscriptions to, we get very attractive pricing. If whatever their counterpart to the vCenter licensing weren't an issue, it would probably be 20% of what we pay for VMware.

When you add the vCenter, counterpart back in, however, it comes to be probably 80%-85% of what you actually need. The last 10% or 15% is where it gets pricey. That's a lot to cover for us to do unless there's some other serious functional advantage - and our guys haven't seen that yet.

I'd rate Hyper-V a five out of ten. I'm not a user of it, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to rate it, however, the part of it that I was most interested in was the pricing notion. Microsoft does all sorts of interesting pricing things. I'm sure they have a good reason for doing it, however, to say, "We'll give you 80% of what you need for almost nothing and if you want the last 20%, you got to give us your left kidney" seems a little unusual.

We are mainly using Hyper-V for VMs. The primary business is biscuit manufacturing, so we have 70 different types of sales-related software, some Windows-based SAP, and VMs running on Hyper-V. All VMs are running on Hyper-V. So indirectly, everyone is using it because it's our primary production system. We have maybe 650 employees at the moment. About 200 of these are computer users who are connected with Hyper-V in one way or another. Either they are using some of its services in a virtual machine or they're the IT guys directly involved with it. The non-IT people are using finance software or SAP-related software that they access through the web. Some servers are standalone Hyper-V, and there are two clusters of Hyper-V.

We have a cluster with storage space direct in Hyper-V, and we have virtual networking as well, so we are using all of the features except for Credential Guard, Host Guardian, and a few other things. We are not using these types of Hyper-V solutions because we don't need them.

Microsoft has developed a Windows Admin Center to manage its servers. I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation. Microsoft could also do more modules related to servers and add administration features for that. I like Admin Center, and I want to deploy it in my organization, but the role-based access control feature is limited as we have to give a complete administrative right to other users as well. So these are some limitations that are blocking us. The Admin Center needs to provide a consolidated management interface that is easy to configure and provide a role-based access control so that we can give certain rights to our other users enabling them to administer the servers.

I joined the organization where I currently work in the last year, and the organization has deployed Hyper-V since 2012. So, in this organization, I have used Hyper-V for one year. But before that, I was a Microsoft instructor teaching about Microsoft products, including Hyper-V.

I would say that Hyper-V is pretty stable. But when it updates, we must restart all Windows systems. So if Microsoft can fix this thing so that the packages install restarting, then everything would be heaven for us. This means some downtime on our business side.

Yeah. It's easy to scale cluster features like Microsoft or Hyper-V. We can add as many servers—a maximum of 64—so it can handle a lot and it's easy for us to add to it. But there is one requirement, which is that the servers have to be identical in hardware specs. So that is one of the limitations.

Technical support was good. We didn't require Hyper-V technical support, but we have some issues with our Exchange online and email. So, for that, we opened a ticket with Microsoft, and they provided us with good and excellent support.

The initial setup is simple. There's not much to do. We input one command or just one or two clicks on the UI. Initial setup in the Windows environment for any software is not that difficult. Installing Hyper-V takes five to 10 minutes, including two server restarts. And then, we have to make the VMs, so that depends on how many we are making. That's the other factor, not the initial deployment. Migrating VMs is easy. It does not require any specific configurations because it runs on most hardware. And Windows Update comes with automatic updates. We use the WSUS server to update our servers to have controlled update patches. We keep our servers up to date, so it's easier, and it does not require any specialized hardware.

I rate it eight out of 10. I recommend Hyper-V because it's easy to install and supports most hardware. It runs on almost everything. I'm also recommending my company go for Azure Stack because it also uses Hyper-V, so we will not have to convert our VMs. But the top management in our organization is considering Nutanix or VMware solutions. I don't know why they're doing this. 

The solution is used as a hosting database. 

The solution is highly scalable. 

The pricing and technical support can be improved. 

I have been using Hyper-V for a few months. 

The stability of the solution is satisfactory. 

The solution is highly scalable. Fifty eight users are using the solution. 

The technical support is moderate. 

Neutral

Hyper-V's initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes a day. 

The solution can be implemented in-house. 

Hyper-V is expensive. 

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.