Hyper-V Reviews

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.

They need to make the initial configuration more straightforward, as the networking part is confusing.

I've used it for three years.

I find out that for smaller shops, that have under 50VMs with a 1gb network, you don't need separate iSCSI traffic for your data. I know that all the best practices tell you to separate the traffic, but what I am seeing, is a much better Hyper-V performance if you keep ISCSI traffic with your data traffic. If you can use CIFS instead of the iSCSI, go with CIFS, HyperV loves CIFS.

We did have problems, and you need to make sure that the LUNs have enough space. If you run out of space, you will need to spend a few hours to bring the VMs up.

If you know what you are doing, you can automate the deployment of a new Hyper-V host with a PXE boot and VMM.

Customer Service:

5/10.

Technical Support:

It's 5/10 as it is like a lotto, you never know who you will get on other side. Sometimes you get an expert, and sometimes you get a beginner.

We previously used VMware. The primary reason to switch to Hyper-V was the cost, as Hyper-V is for free.

The networking part is confusing for the beginners

We did it in-house.

Hyper-V is free, however if you build clusters, you should get a manager to centralize the management. If you are big enough and you have some money, I strongly recommend System Center, which includes VMM and other great tools like Orchestrator. You can automate building your VMs and even your application tiers. Also with VMM, you can automate spinning up new Hyper-V hosts with PXE boot. I configured, I used it, and it works perfectly.

If you are small shop go with a third party Hyper-V manager like 5nine. It is cheap, they even have a free version, and also a converter from VMware is free. I am using it right now and it works great. It includes alerting.

If for some reason you cant get either, you can manage your clusters directly from fail over cluster manager. It is just more manual work than with the tools above.

For the cost, it has almost the same features as VMware. If you are a Microsoft shop, then get Hyper-V with System Center to connect to Windows Azure and you are all set.

The proven technological prowess of Microsoft has produced yet another wonder for virtual machines - Hyper-V. The Windows Server 2008 R2 Hypervisor, is indeed a step towards the virtual world. Gone are those days where you start to scratch your head for low disk space and complicated hardware and networking solutions. The excellent features included in Hyper-V are dynamic memory management, better end user virtual performance, 3D Graphics enhancements, and good quality of media streaming. There is a significant change in Hyper-V for Live migration. This is a step taken by Microsoft to give tough competition to VMWare. Hyper-V with its 64 logical processors has got a new edge in its VM performances. There is a quantum change in previous releases of Hyper-V that is better in SP1 than in SP2.

To optimize the performance of your desktops and servers, you need to install extra RAM and multiprocessors to use Hyper-V. Hyper-V is useful for X64 platforms. VMware has got the edge over Hyper-V in the case of X86 platforms. The latest release of Hyper-V has got better scalability than its previous one. Hyper-V lags in the case of Maximum VM RAM (64GB), where VMware provides 255GB VM RAM. In its earlier version it has got also a smaller number of nodes that can be added in a single cluster which is 16. The number is 32 in the case of VMware.

Microsoft with its better reach and excellent customer support is always a preferable choice. Although VMware may still be leading the enterprise market, there is neck to neck competition between Hyper-V and VMware. Moreover, in its latest version, Hyper-V has enhanced some excellent features, like additional capability of Memory for VM, running up to 1TB. It has also increased the single VM RAM capacity up to 64GB. There is also an enhancement of 160 logical processors per Hyper-V host, 1024 virtual machines per host, 64 nodes per cluster, 4000 virtual machines per cluster, and 32 virtual processors.

Pros of Hyper-V are- 1) Dynamic memory allocation for the virtual machines by efficient usage real time memory distribution architecture 2) More number of virtual machines per Hyper-V host through VDI technology 3) One of the best features in Hyper V is of live migration of running virtual machines and instances to another server in case of a failure 4) Dynamic I/O redirection using cluster node connectivity 5) Inbuilt Powershell feature to automate backup instances 6) Good virtual network and networking support for enhanced utilization of resources

Few cons of Hyper-V are- 1) Licensing costs 2) Vulnerable to server failure 3) Lacks advanced features of virtualization platform 4) More consumption of CPU, memory and need more disk I/O bandwidth than physical servers

The hypervisor based server visualization product, launched from Microsoft along with Microsoft Server 2008 R2, greatly helps in managing high availability, load balancing, resource sharing, and fail over clustering. It is a reliable solution, from enterprises to small scale industries, to make the best use of server resources and reducing costs. It enables multiple instances of machines to run together on the same server, which maintains redundancy.

I'm mostly implementing Hyper-V solutions. Most of my clients are implementing Hyper-V on-premises, and on cloud my clients are using Microsoft Azure.

I am a Microsoft architect. I'm certified in Microsoft. My company is located in Cameroon and many countries in Africa and out of Africa. In my company we are working on Microsoft solutions at 80% on Windows Server, SQL, Exchange, Microsoft for Business, ISO. We are training with these solutions and implementing them.

Most clients are using Microsoft solutions. I prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions. For example, when you have Hyper-V, it doesn't make sense to pay more for another license to buy VMware. For me, it's a waste.

With the Windows data center, I can have an infinite number of virtual machines. In the past, VMware was very important maybe 8 or 10 years ago, but with Hyper-V it has navigation ability and it's integrated with Windows Viptela 16 for free. People want navigation and high availability. All these features are included with Hyper-V for free when you have a license of Windows Server.

For Hyper-V, the copy and paste function could be improved. You cannot continue copying from the host machine to the virtual machine. It's very difficult. You can paste text if you want to extract the command from the virtual machine. You can save the command on the host machine and pass through the main activity to paste the command on the virtual machine. It's good but sometimes when we want to work very quickly, it would help if Microsoft integrated the possibility to paste a file from the host machine to the virtual machine.

The integration tools are sometimes not very smooth. Most clients can't develop it very well because most administrators are working on host machines or from a laptop administering virtual machines. So the administrator working on a laptop  must have the possibility maybe from the host to paste on the virtual machine.

It's very stable. I have never had a problem with Hyper-V's stability.

The solution is scalable because you can migrate the virtual machine for Hyper-V to the cloud easily. Each time they release a new OS, they are adding new features so far it's scalable.

I've never had an issue with Hyper-V where I needed to ask for support. I can resolve most issues myself.

Deployment is very easy. 

It depends, but it can take two or three hours to implement it. If the infrastructure is difficult, it can take one or two days. It depends on the number of virtual machines currently in use.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

On-premises

We usually use Microsoft Hyper-V for very small customers that don't have the budget for another library or hypervisor. We use Hyper-V when the customer has only one or two virtual machines. It's typically bundled with the Windows Server operating system, so we can provide virtual machines for free. 

In Malaysia, we started the cloud journey in 2020. Most people were looking for services, and many customers wanted to migrate to the cloud immediately. They just look forward and make some comparisons. If you say, "I want to migrate to a cloud," typically, our customers will ask for AWS as a primary choice, followed by Microsoft Azure.

The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host.

VMware is more stable than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V's scalability or stability is okay. The problem is updating the host. Sometimes we have to schedule downtime for the entire machine to boot up, and the Windows update process takes a long time on the loading stream. It causes a lot of downtime for the customers. Hyper-V has more requirements to scale up compared to VMware. 

Only about 15 percent of our customers use Hyper-V. Most use VMware. VMware is much more robust than Hyper-V. If customers need high availability or more stability, we tell them to go with VMware. If cost is an issue, they can opt for the VMware Essentials Kit, which is the cheapest. 

Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system. We can do anything on top of it without any other computer. 

VMware can't do this. You must have a console server, and then you can use the web to enter to the VMware to do the configuration. Hyper-V can still be configured inside the host operating system, which is more convenient.

We don't have a dedicated team just for Hyper-V. We just have a Microsoft support team. This is a Microsoft product.

The time to value for Hyper-V is shorter than VMware because the customer will typically purchase a Windows Server license with the hardware, so it will be faster.

I think Hyper-V is much cheaper for a small or medium-sized business. If the customer is running VMware and using Windows Server, we still have to purchase a Windows Server license plus the VMware license. Hyper-V will be cheaper if it's just a small deployment for one or two virtual machines.

I rate Hyper-V six out of 10. Hyper-V is okay if customers are comfortable with it and don't require high availability. 

On-premises

Hyper-V is a virtualization layer. We use it for all of our applications.

The performance is very good.

Failure capabilities are insufficient for disaster recovery. Better disaster recovery is required.

The technical support is adequate but it could be better.

We have been using Hyper-V for 11 years.

We are working with the 2019 version. Version 2022 has been released, and we intend to update it next year.

Hyper-V is a stable product.

In our organization, this solution is used by more than 1,200 people, and that number will increase to more than 1,500 users next month.

It's a scalable solution.

In my experience, support is normal. If I were to rate them, I would give them an eight out of ten. 

When you contact technical support, you will speak with a level one representative, who has less knowledge than level two and level three representatives.

Positive

Previously, I was using VMware, but it was a bit costly compared to Hyper-V.

I also question why I should pay for the virtualization when I was getting it for free with Hyper-V. 

With a Data Center license, such as the Windows Data Center license, Hyper-V is essentially free. That is why I switched to Hyper-V; it met 90 percent of our requirements.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to install.

It took me two to three days to complete the design and installation.

We only need one administrator to keep this solution running.

I completed the installation myself.

We purchase the license from Microsoft.

We renew the software assurance every three years.

Definitely, I would recommend this solution.

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

On-premises

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. 

Hybrid Cloud