Hyper-V Reviews

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.

5/10.

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.

I use the solution for Jira visualization and Jira workload.

The solution is very user-friendly. Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, it is really easy to use and doesn't cost us much.

The feature of native integration with Azure is good.

The solution should improve its native integration with other public cloud solutions.

I have been using the solution for the past 10-15 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. However, we do not have a big cluster. At the moment, we do not have any plans to increase the usage of the solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We did not have any issues at all.

We get ROI on the product.

Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.

If someone plans to implement Hyper-V, they should seek an agreement with Microsoft to get a better value for the product. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

I use it personally for training. I do some testing for myself. I use it for virtualization and have used it to compare testing functionality. 

It has not helped my organization. I just use it for testing.

The solution works well on Windows.

The product, overall, works well. 

I like the functionality. Users can use it in a hybrid scenario.

The virtualization capabilities are good.

When it comes to Hyper-V, the worst thing is it's based on the Windows operating system. For the installation of Hyper-V, you're supposed to install the right operating system. For me, it's strange.

I have some experience with the solution, however, I haven't used it for too long. I've used it for the last 12 months, at least. I might have used it for six months in total. 

I'm not sure which version I'm using. It was the basic setup on the 2016 servers.

I use the solution for my personal projects. 

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.

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization.

Hyper-V has improved our organization by enabling consolidation, high availability, disaster recovery, backups, and more. It makes it all simple.

I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center.

Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. Performance can also be better.

We used Hyper-V from 2008 to 2019.

Hyper-V is a stable solution.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. 

I haven't used Microsoft's technical support much.

We have used Citrix and VMware. I would say VMware is simpler for the deployment side of it. Hyper-V is also easy to deploy, but you need to set it up as a role.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. The deployment time depends on the hardware. It can take anywhere from 20 minutes to half an hour. One engineer can implement, manage, and maintain this solution.

It's free with a Windows license, but you can say that there is an ROI in separating workloads.

Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.

I would recommend Hyper-V for small-scale users with one or two VMs. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V a seven.

I use this solution for some of my virtual machines.

It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner.

I find the hardware and the cost reduction most valuable.

The backup has room for improvement. 

It is a pretty stable solution. 

I have not scaled it because I am not running it in a cluster environment anymore. I do know that the clusters work and that Hyper-V can easily scale for an organization's greater needs.

Microsoft tech support is horrible.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took a day to deploy. 

The Hyper-V pricing and licensing are very good. 

I looked at Hyper-V vs AHV, which is a Nutanix product. Nutanix Acropolis is a hyperconverged product that does a lot of next-level type of virtualization software.