Hyper-V Reviews

It's free minus initial licensing for the OS. You can centrally manage multiple Hyper-V hosts rather easy with no extra licensing fees vs VMware vCenter. Having used both I still have a preference for VMware (especially for P2V situations), but for home/small offices Hyper-V is a great alternative. Hyper-V is included in Windows 8 and Windows 10 with minimal loss to functionality (mainly no Hyper-V replica).

I use this in my home lab, and I am able to save space by running multiple Operating Systems and Services on only one physical device.

I have not gotten to configure virtual SANs, but I wish there were more solutions for storage options. Virtual SANs aside, Server 2012R2 does provide a rather easy way to setup iSCSI targets with local storage. I wish importing/exporting were more robust and more user-friendly. Creating templates would be nice. I will say Hyper-V replica for clustering/failover is pretty sweet. P2V situations are a little more convoluted than with VMware, but still relatively easy. You just have to create a VHD image of the physical machine then attach it to a new virtual machine.

I've used it for one or two years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

I run an i7 quad core with a total of 8 processing threads and 24GB of RAM. I have eight VMs on a Hyper-V host, but not all run at the same time. The most I’ve had run is five, and everything ran pretty smoothly.

Technical support is very limited. Knowledge-base articles on TechNet and public forums are all that is really available.

This is my first enterprise deployment of a virtual machine infrastructure. I used Hyper-V because it was already on my host OS.

Deployment is easy, enable the feature using the wizard, reboot, and access the management console to start making VMs. Implementation is easy, if you can’t set it up yourself, you don’t belong in IT.

It's free, minus the license for the host OS.

I like VMware ESXi, I am aware they offer a free version as well. When I have time and resources, I would like to implement a new infrastructure using that. I’m very familiar with ESXi because we use that in our work infrastructure.

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. 

We were using Hyper-V as a part of our ERP system, proxy servers, and some very minimalistic workstations.

If I want to create a cluster of around five to 10 physical servers Hyper-V does not get integrated with any kind of virtual sense, such as vSense.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Hyper-V a ten out of ten.

I am not able to scale the solution the way I want and that is why we are migrating to VMware.

I rate the scalability of Hyper-V a four out of ten.

I have used the support one or two times for post-implementations and they're very helpful and skilled.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is easy compared to vScaler. It did not take more than two or three days for setting up the vendor cluster.

Our in-house team did the deployment of the solution.

We have received a return on investment. However, we had a better result with vScaler.

We evaluated Citrix solutions and Open Linux with our integration team. We choose Hyper-V because we have Microsoft Windows systems.

I recommend this solution to others if they have a cluster of around four or less than 10 servers. However, if they want to have higher-level clusters and integrated service solutions, they will have to look at other options.

I rateHyper-V a seven 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 primarily use the product for multiple servers and for Dynamics AX, for example, the routing server, the load balancer, the application server, and stuff like that.

The initial setup is very easy.

The scalability is okay.

The performance of VMware was better, which is why I've moved away from Hyper-V.

The operating system is very, very heavy. Sometimes the system is pretty slow. Basically, the iOS performance is very slow, as compared to VMware. They must make the OS as simple and as smooth as they can to make it more user-friendly and faster.

The product is quite expensive.

I've been using the solution for about one year. 

The performance isn't that great. If can be slow. 

The stability is okay. I'd describe it as between 50 to 60% stable. 

The scalability is decent. I'd say that it can scale to 60 to 70%.

We've had so many issues, however, we didn't really ask for help from Microsoft. We mostly did a lot of googling and worked to figure things out on our end. 

I've recently moved over to vSphere. 

The product is not difficult to set up. It's not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any problems with its implementation.

The first time I did an implementation, I needed help from Microsoft. They assisted us originally.

The solution is quite expensive when you compare it to other products. Microsoft solutions aren't cheap. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I have used the Hyper-V for Dynamics AX for a while, however, recently I moved to a virtual machine, VM.

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. It's not the worst, however, it certainly is not the best either. 

I would recommend Hyper-V to users, especially if they are dealing with a Microsoft OS.

We primarily use this solution as a hypervisor.

They could turn it into a product because that's the problem with it. It doesn't have a single place where you can manage things. You have to go into all different screens to be able to configure it. It is hard to track what the performance is. It's really just a feature added to Windows, and Microsoft does not really have anything that pulls it all together well. Compared to VMware, it does not have everything collaborate on one screen.

In addition, the solution needs better ability to do backups. 

Once it is setup, there is no problem.

It is a hypervisor, so if you had more servers, you get more scale.

The initial setup is not straightforward, it is a bunch of Microsoft parts that you have to arrange yourself. You have to set up the networking so that you have redundancy. You then have to go in, cluster two Windows servers, which is not so easy. The Hyper-V becomes simple, but it does not happen if the other things are not properly configured.

It takes roughly four hours to install. 

There is no ROI for us, because it is a free product.

It is free for us so that was a prime factor for choosing this solution.

We are currently seriously considering migrating to VMware solutions.

It is good for small installations. If you are looking to do anything fancy, this is is not a good choice.

The solution serves our needs as an education entity in the UAE.

Both Hyper-V and VMware have similar features, including network utilization. 

The solution allows us to take advantage of our physical environment. We save on cost and computing. It has good performance when compared with the physical, normal, traditional way of computing. The VMs are easy to deploy and to manage from a central administration portal, in respect of managing the workloads. 

Traditional architecture, such as converged infrastructure, should be done away with. So, nowadays, we can save space, like space footprint. If one is using hyper-converged infrastructure, everything will be virtualized. So, basically, we can state that we are a completely software-defined data center once we move to the hyper-converged infrastructure. That is our target.

At present, Hyper-V can be managed by the SCVMM, but it doesn't have the portal. In VMware vSphere there is a portal, through which the VMs can be managed. Microsoft is providing Windows helping center, but it should be dedicated to a certain extent. It doesn't have full features when compared to SCVMM. So, it's better to have something similar to that.

We have been using Hyper-V for more than five years.

While every product comes with issues, the solution works for us. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is the best.

The initial setup was easy and pretty straightforward. 

Since the solution is compatible with Azure Cloud and uses the same format, it will make it very easy for us to load the latter in the future, should we decide to do so. 

Thanks to our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, Hyper-V is free for us. 

VMware vSphere licenses are very costly compared to Hyper-V because we have have our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, meaning that Hyper-V is free for us. We can use it without any problem.

I would recommend the solution to someone who is fully Microsoft, one who is looking to implement Microsoft environment in its entirety. I recommend the solution to someone who plans to go with a hybrid environment through Azure. 

I rate Hyper-V as 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.