Hyper-V Reviews

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization. We initially set up 54 servers and three SANs.

The virtual SAN feature is helpful. 

Some of the interfaces need improvements, like the virtual switch or virtual VLAN interfaces.

I have been using Hyper-V for almost six months.

Hyper-V is stable.

Hyper-V is scalable.

Microsoft support is good. 

Hyper-V is a simple product overall, but it's complex to set up. If you want to configure a VLAN, you have to configure all the prerequisites. About 15 people are working with this solution, but you need only three for maintenance. 

We had help from a reseller. 

We pay an annual license for Hyper-V, and it's on the expensive side. 

I rate Hyper-V eight out of 10. The first time you deploy Hyper-V, you need to do a test scenario before moving into a production environment. 

The primary use case is for customers who want to virtualize their infrastructure, but are on a budget and don't need advanced features. 

This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints. 

Security could be improved and they need to have some sort of a Distributed Resource Scheduler like VMware. Hyper-V doesn't have that kind of a solution. Computing balance could be improved. If you have three or four nodes in a cluster, it should look at the load and based on the algorithm they use, it will place the VMs automatically onto a utilized node in the cluster. Memory ballooning, where unused memory can be cleaned and given to demanded VMs, is a feature I would like to see. 

Taking snapshots could also be improved. It's not straightforward and I had a couple of issues with the Windows server 2000 tool when I took a snapshot of the active directory. When I went to restore that snapshot, I had a problem with active directory sync issues. VMware doesn't have this problem. Even if you're taking a snapshot of the active directory, you can easily revert back and you will not have any trouble with active directory replications. 

I have been using Hyper-V since 2012. 

It is stable, especially if you do Hyper-V clustering. Some customers don't invest much into IT infrastructure, so I design Hyper-V-cluster-based solutions. The only potential problems are attacks on Windows servers, vulnerability issues, or receiving stolen packages could require you to restart it. But it does its job. 

Some of my customers have software assurance from Microsoft, but those who don't have to pay if they need technical assistance. Microsoft Azure has support, but if a customer has deployed the infrastructure on-premises and they don't have software assurance, they will have a problem getting support from Microsoft. 

The installation took about fifteen to twenty minutes for a Microsoft Windows server. 

For deployment, you need expertise in terms of storage, network, and computing. If a customer requires a high performance, we need to look at the computing, processor, and what kind of storage and network switches we're using. You need an expertise team in order to get the best solution. 

I installed this product myself. 

I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints. 

VMware has a lot of features. For example, with vMotion, if an administrator wants to do maintenance, they can do live migrations. Hyper-V does the job and is okay, but it's not the same as VMware. 

If you are on a budget and can't invest too much into IT infrastructure, I recommend Hyper-V. If budget isn't a problem and you're looking for the best solution, I would go for VMware. I have about 85 customers that are using Hyper-V clusters at the moment. Hyper-V is okay for utilizing the file server, clusters, or active directory, but you won't get advanced features. 

I would rate Hyper-V a six out of ten because it is missing a lot of features. 

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.

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.

We supply Hyper-V for hardware virtualization to customers.

Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

One of the network problems I face is I cannot introduce other security layers on top of Hyper-V as you can in VMware. When it comes to the network the VMware is more flexible than Hyper-V.

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

The solution is stable.

We have not had any issues that we would need to contact the support.

I have previously used VMware solutions.

There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper.

The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.

I would advise customers that are Microsoft users to use Hyper-V if they want to have more cost-efficiency. Additionally, if the customer uses a lot of Windows Server for the guest OS, I will recommend Hyper-V.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

We use it for anything like production and everything we're running on right now.

I like that it's easy to use.

The backup site could be better. We used to face a lot of issues, and we are looking to solve that now. We are in the process of moving all the infrastructure to the cloud. It could also use more integration on the management part. We also need more integration on the monitoring sites.

I have been using Hyper-V for four to five years.

It could be more stable. We faced a lot of issues on the backup site.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. We are a global center, and we use Hyper-V across 22 countries.

We also use VMware vSphere.

It is a straightforward implementation. If you want to put Hyper-V as a single load, it will take about one to two hours. If you want high availability, it will take approximately four to five hours.

We implemented this solution.

I have been using VMware and Hyper-V. Comparing the two, I love to use VMware more than Hyper-V. However, I would recommend this solution to potential users.

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

We use Hyper-V for production, testing, and development.

It's a core infrastructure solution, so it's not a user-solution. It's for server virtualization. It's actually deployed virtually for other services that need to deploy virtual machines using it.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future.

I have been using this solution since 2008.

Hyper-V is both stable and scalable; however, I also use VMware which I find to be more scalable and stable overall.

The support with Microsoft is great.

We use VMware, but Hyper-V is much cheaper; however, VMware is more robust, more scalable, more agile for us. It was a mix of both because we wanted to be able to see our way through technology skills.

The initial setup was quite easy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven. If it were a little more flexible and stable, I'd give it a higher rating.

We run the majority of our production servers from our Hyper-V 2012 R2 Cluster. 

• It was our first step into virtualization around five years ago. 
• It allows for quick deployment of servers and workloads.

• Live motioning of VMs, which I consider to be a standard function. 
• When upgrading clusters from Windows Server 2012 to 2012 R2, we were able to live motion VMs from one cluster to another.

I would love to see other options for connecting VMs to large data storage. 

We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work.

It works very well. Its performance, stability, and redundancy are all very dependable.

The primary use case is for testing software.

The most valuable feature is being able to do checkpoints then roll back to the checkpoint because that's what we need to test the software. We test the installation and then we roll it back and retest it.

It's really just a small part of what we do, so I was looking for something that would get the job done and it met all the requirements at very little cost.

It would be nice if they had video acceleration, they got rid of that and VMware has video acceleration. It would be nice to be able to test through video part the Virtual Machine, like you can with VMware, Hyper-V does not let you do that.

I have been using Hyper-V for five years. 

It's very stable and very scalable. We're a very small operation, so we really just require one person for maintenance and deployment.

The initial setup is very easy, you just check a couple of checkmarks.

It's included in the windows, so not it's very expensive.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.