Hyper-V Reviews

I work in an environment where we are required to use them, as well as for DevOps and a few other things like Helios and similar things. As a result, I use it for DevOps testing, infrastructure, and implementation within the product areas of my clients.

The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features.

The WSUS could stand to improve a little bit. It is also foggy at times. Again, I use a wide variety of products and services, but going through each one would take much longer, but WSUS is an awesome Microsoft product that could use some improvement in terms of reporting tools and such. Even the additions and servers work is more difficult. Even the manual add is difficult, and reporting occasionally breaks into the endpoints, but that could be one to five servers when I'm checking a hundred to 200 servers.  I suppose it's insignificant, but when it causes problems with those minor details, it can be difficult. But, aside from that, it works well.

It does what it needs to do and is adequate for the time being. It completes tasks such as replication cycles and other similar tasks. That's probably the only way it can be. In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication. If it could have been a simpler process, or if there was another way they could have done it, it would be beneficial. For example, if I'm doing site-to-site replication, I would normally have to do that in terms of bandwidth; Cisco has some, and they have some different tools that would enable the packages to be smaller and faster, but maybe just Microsoft takes a while to do the site-to-site replication.

I have been working with Hyper-V for approximately 15 years.

This solution is used by 10 administrators, and the product itself has 500,000, or 600,000 users.

We have pretty good in-house expertise, we haven't needed to reach out for actual technical support.

I test products ranging from VOIP to Microsoft to virtualization, VMware, and Hyper-V. I am always testing products and then deciding whether to put them into production for use or scale operations.

In the last year, I would say it has been a voice over IP products as well as a couple of SBC products. This is also true for VM testing and Microsoft products, such as Hyper-V, and a couple of software for voice over IP integration.

Microsoft, as well as perhaps eight or nine others.

I also work with DevOps.

We haven't used the VMware solution to its full potential, and the reason for that is that the software that is currently used on that platform lacks certain features that would allow us to use VMware to its full potential, but it resides on the VMware platform.

In order to obtain the products, we must go through a third-party vendor. We can't go directly to Microsoft.

I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

Hyper-V doesn't have a lot of features and is limited compared to other virtualization software.

I've been working with Hyper-V for more than ten years.

Hyper-V is not stable - we've had many errors and have had to do a lot of patch fixes for it.

Hyper-V is scalable.

The initial setup was very easy.

Hyper-V is free-of-charge.

Hyper-V is affordable, but if you have the budget, I recommend going with VMware. I'd rate Hyper-V as five out of ten.

We basically use it to virtualize a service for email on-premise. We also use it to virtualize the apps, but it is mainly for virtualizing servers, such as SQL Server, Exchange Server, SharePoint, and CRM.

It has cut down the management role on the actual service itself because we only have four Hyper-V hosts. Recently we had two, but we've put in two all-flash Hyper-V hosts. We have all-flash storage. It is good storage with loads of RAM. Most of them have got three-quarters of a terabyte of RAM, and they all are dual 32-core processors. There is no lack of power or anything in them. Because our servers are virtualized, it means that we do have four rack servers.

It really reduces the load. By using replication, we can separate out the servers and put them at different locations. We have them attached to the 10 gig fiber. With the replication facility, even if we do lose a server, we can be up and running within seconds or minutes at worst.

It is actually very low on resources. It doesn't use many resources. It is also very easy to tailor. You can change things like the amount of memory and storage on the fly. 

It is very stable and reliable. I like its replication feature, which is very good. It is also very easy to move the virtual machines across push servers without any difficulty. 

Its performance is also very good. Now with this pandemic, a lot of workers are working from home. A lot of workers have been using laptops as their desktop computers, and they would remote into a virtual PC. There is no difficulty, and they can't tell the difference between this and the real one. It is much easier to manage.

The Hyper-V management console could be improved to make it easier. It should be a little bit more granular. Various virtual switches could also be improved to make virtual desk management slightly better. 

The replication could be improved slightly. The checkpoints or snapshots could be improved to make it a bit more transparent to the user.

I have been using this solution for around 15 years.

It is very stable and very reliable. I never had any failures of any description with it, which is amazing. We might have had hardware failures on the host, but everything is redundant, so there is plenty of resilience there.

I haven't come across any scalability issues, but you need a fairly powerful host machine. 

Nearly all users are using Hyper-V in some way, but they're not aware that it is Hyper-V that they're using while logging in to the servers. The servers are all virtualized, except for the physical servers that are hosting Hyper-V. We have quite a lot of virtual servers. The gateway that they use is a virtualized gateway server. Email servers are all virtualized. All sorts of services and filling servers are all virtualized. Virtualization reduces the physical footprint.

I never had to use Hyper-V technical support from Microsoft. It has been pretty stable.

It is very straightforward, very simple, and very quick. It is very quick to set up a virtual machine. You can set it up in minutes.

Because we're an NGO or a charity, we get discount rates from Microsoft. The costs are not astronomical for us. To give you an example, Office 2019 would only cost 30 or 45 for us. We tend to use the on-premises version rather than the cloud version. The reason is that the subscription service works out more expensive after a few years than the on-premise version. We're not worried about having the bleeding edge stuff. We just want it to be functional.

I would advise making sure that you have the hardware that is up to the job. You should also have a clear plan of what you want to virtualize. Make sure that there is room for growth in terms of the physical hardware for the host, which is the server hosting Hyper-V. 

It is very robust. It doesn't consume as many resources as VMware, for instance. It is fairly slick. It is very functional and doesn't really present great challenges.

I would definitely rate Hyper-V a ten out of ten. 

My primary use case is for virtualization of all solutions from physical servers into other solutions for ease of management. 

With the virtualization  what we could achieve was maximum utilization of our resources. Previously we used to like have ten, fifteen physical service each one was utilized for a certain percentage and uh, not everything was utilized. I mean one service was maybe 20% utilization one was 90% utilization. So, there was no balance of utilization. With virtualization we can balance. In addition, we can be accurate at the with the solution or Hyper-V, this gives us a close decision I can move motion machines live from one physical machine to another.

I am able to give end users better performance and better response time and better availability.

The the only challenge for us was moving existing physical machines to virtual machines. The time taken was to migrate the physical machine to the virtual machine took about two months.

With each update, the security of this solution just gets better and better. It is very stable.

We have 250 employees and current users at any given point of time using this solution. One infrastructure has an ARCo database. Another has a Si database. The applications have a site exchange between them.

We have two employees who maintain deployment and management of the solution. One handles the database, and the other handles the application. We plan to scale to more users in the future.

The time taken for integration was to migrate the physical machine to the virtual machine. We had to do this one by one.

The set up was very straightforward, you just follow the procedure, the documentation, and it is a breeze.

We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product.

I think that Hyper-V stands in the same ranking as VMware or Oracle in terms of solutions for similar needs.

If you want to use a solution that does the job that is required, to the best of its ability, then Hyper-V is a great solution.

We use Hyper-V for test virtualization.

We used this product for our virtualization environment.

One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use.

We would like it to migrate virtual machines without interruptions.

I have been using this solution for five years.

The solution needs to improve the stability.

Hyper-V can scale well.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster.

Neutral

The installation was not easy and it took approximately two days.

We needed to have a consultant for the implementation. We have two administrators and one manager that does the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

Two main x3650M3 servers with 192GB and 96GB RAM. Primary case was Active Directory infrastructure (actually three DC's), file repository, main MS SQL Server and couple of applications servers.

Additionally remote access thru Desktop Services, management (nVision), central AV (ESET), software routers. In short - whole bunch of different servers and different operating systems Windows Server and desktop, different flavours of Linux, even FreeBSD).

Creating virtual machines is really straightforward. Possibility of changing virtual disk size is very helpful. The simplicity of the interface can be confusing because it really provides some advanced options.

I am waiting for improvements in networking and life migration. Some networking settings could be less cryptic.

More than five years.

I have never had any stability problems caused by Hyper-V for over five years.

I am very satisfied with the scalability of Hyper-V. I'm using up to eight virtual machines on single x3650 M3

We previously used VMware, but we switched because Hyper-V is cheaper and delivers the same stability for less money. To be honest for free.

Initial setup was straightforward. It was easy and fast. It took me between a half  to an hour for complete deployment. The most complex part is the networking.

In-house. To be precise by myself.

Licensing is fairly easy because Hyper-V itself is free.

Citrix Xen, but this solution has become too expensive.

The most valuable feature of this is the ability to provide a completely redundant hosted solution to our clients, no matter where they are. We have the ability to load balance a cluster of servers so that resources are evenly spread, providing the best experience. I also like the ability to live migrate machines if we have any issues with a host. The user experiences no degradation.

This solution allows us to use minimal resources to support a large number of clients.

One thing I would love to see with this product is the ability to provide an offline solution. It would be great if someone could do work when no network connection is available, then sync up when a connection is available. I would also like to see better performance with media. Right now, streaming any media within Hyper-V is just not feasible.

We have been using Hyper-V for over eight years now. We are currently using Microsoft Hyper-V 2012 to provide a fully hosted desktop solution for our clients. Our clients access their desktops through a gateway broker.

We do experience some instability with the platform. It usually happens if there is a lot of I/O happening on the volumes that hold the VMs. We also have some issues working with clustered servers not load balancing correctly.

No issues with scalability.

Technical support is 10/10. Well, it’s a Microsoft product, so the level of support has been great.

Before Hyper-V, we used VMware. At the time, VMware was difficult to manage, very expensive and not as reliable.

Hyper-V is very straightforward. It’s really just adding the appropriate roles and licenses to the servers. Once the brokers and gateways are set up, it’s really easy to just add hosting servers and VMs to those hosts.

I wasn’t involved in the pricing or licensing, so I can’t really comment on it.

Before using Hyper-V, we used VMware and Citrix. This solution gave us the most flexibility.

If you are looking for virtual technology, Hyper-V continues to grow and improve. Being a Microsoft product, it’s the most-compatible solution to implement into your environment. It’s also the most cost-effective solution and you really can’t beat Microsoft support.

I primarily use the solution for consolidation, and I try to do replication using the last version. However, I need some time to do this configuration.

The solution is free.

The performance is okay.

For some customers that have a smaller implementation and not so much data, it's a good solution.

There are some products that you can mount over Hyper-V that provide the features that, in today's Hyper-V, are not present.

I'd like the performance to be better. 

If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools to coexist with many, many features that are not present in the base Hyper-V.

The interface needs more options and more refinement. 

I've used the solution since the first version. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. However, the performance could be better.

If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools and more people. You need to work more. That said, it's cheaper. Some enterprises, some companies, find it better since they may have no more money. Bigger enterprises have the money to spend and have the tools or buy the tools needed, or use they may use VMware implementations along with Hyper-V.

The support is good, however, it is expensive. 

There's a lot of documentation and experience in the market. With some time and experience, you can manage alone. That said, for some problems, support is required. And the support is expensive.

I use VMware and Hyper-V.

If the customer has an implementation with so many virtual machines and multiple networks, maybe VMware is a better solution for the client.

The solution can be complex to set up. If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools. 

On average, two engineers can deploy the solution. 

I haven't taken the time to calculate ROI actively. That said, it might be there as it is a cheaper option. 

You do need to pay for support, which is expensive. The solution by itself is free. 

I'm a reseller.

If the client is new to the solution, they likely will find the product to be complex. You need one or two engineers to handle the implementation, which is easy to manage. With some training, a company can handle it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.