What needs improvement with Hyper-V?

They need to focus more on improving their on-premises solutions. There seems to be a stronger emphasis on cloud services, neglecting areas like service packs or security updates. Managing the Hyper-V server requires installing many prerequisites in the environment, which can be cumbersome. Additionally, vendors don't always certify third-party integrations for large workloads like SAP on the Hyper-V platform. Microsoft should establish certifications with major software companies, such as ERPs or CRMs. Doing so could help make Hyper-V a more attractive option for solutions like Salesforce, which would expand the offerings available to customers.

The tool is expensive.

Hyper-V needs to improve its support.

Sometimes a server or machine shuts down and doesn't automatically restart. I checked the settings and made some adjustments so that the machine will start when services are stopped. That solved the problem

The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. When I contacted the product's office to raise my concerns about the tool's security, I was told that it would be taken care of in the solution's upcoming versions.

The product performs a bit slowly compared to VMware.

There's room for improvement in Hyper-V. One area I've personally encountered issues with is live migration. Sometimes during live migrations, the process gets stuck in a certain state. This can happen with replication as well. It's not necessarily a major problem, but at times, the error messages aren't very informative. They don't clearly explain why the migration failed. If Hyper-V could be more user-friendly with more detailed logging during live migrations, it would be a significant improvement for users. For example, let's say a VM fails to start. The error message might mention a "parameter interrupt" failure, but it wouldn't tell you which specific parameter is causing the issue. These are the kinds of minor details that can be improved to make things easier for end users. With more specific error messages, users could readily identify a configuration issue in a parameter, fix it themselves, and get the VM running. But without clear information, they have to raise a support ticket and wait for support personnel to analyze logs and potentially use source code tracing to identify the problem. This can be a time-consuming process. By providing more user-friendly error messages, we can avoid these situations and empower users to resolve issues independently. That's one immediate improvement.

The solution should be compatible with different systems.

Hi Miss Julia,   a couple of points in my view are like  a.  Memory Page sharing  is limited in comparison to VMWARE or RH.   Secondly, needs to improve in the Browser based management. 

The area that requires attention is the noticeable slowdown in performance. A singular interface for administration control, allowing centralized management of all aspects, would be preferable. Enhanced visibility and reporting capabilities are desired for better insights and analysis.

The pricing and technical support can be improved.

They should include a few more hardware components for integration with servers. It would work great for the Hyper-V environment. Additionally, they should consider cloud virtualization features.

VLAN is not very easy to configure. The product must provide automation of virtualization across VLANs.

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

In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower. This applies not only to the system performance but also to the virtual machine performance. Particularly, the disk I/O is very poor, in my opinion. Additionally, it is lacking in many features that are offered by tools such as VMware. I currently have all the features I need. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything I need to add to my wishlist. Moreover, the company I work for is not that big. I am the sole IT personnel in a company with only 30 employees.

They need to make some improvements to compare to VMware on Nutanix. There should be a center manual console to manage all the Hyper-V servers and cross-host V-motion. There should be clustering, and the virtual data center should be created with that in mind. There should be similar offerings between different services available within the industry. I'd like there to be a central management console and a central configuration tool to manage and configure multiple Hyper-V services. We'd like a template feature to help deploy VMs quickly.

While Hyper-V Manager has the ability to manage multiple servers, there are issues with using Hyper-V Manager to manage large-scale Hyper-V deployments. First, the connection to the various Hyper-V hosts must be manually established. Hyper-V servers can be connected within minutes. Even so, imagine how long the process would take (and how many errors or typos) if you had to manually connect several dozen Hyper-V servers to the console. The bigger problem with this approach is that it doesn't solve the scalability problem. Hyper-V Manager displays virtual machines for the currently selected host. So, what happens if you need to find a specific virtual machine? Hyper-V Manager does not include a search string. Memory migration is also not an option because Hyper-V virtual machines can dynamically migrate from one host server to another. So the host where the VM was yesterday might not be the same host where the VM is today.

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

We would like to have a cloning function added to this product.

Hyper-V requires improvement with manageability.

The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey. We could probably live without it since we are a relatively small operation, however, vCenter is very convenient. vMotion and so forth are nice to be able to do. However, in order to be able to do the counterpart to that in the HyperVision world, suddenly the cost differential diminishes dramatically. We're not considering a change anytime soon, yet things have changed even from the last two years ago when we last looked at this.

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.

We haven't had any difficulties with the solution. We're happy with it. Sometimes there's a bit of slowness in the VMs. The performance could be a bit better. We'd like to see a bit more done with the migration capabilities. The solution needs to offer better local or regional support.

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

Hyper-V has limitations. When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention. In the next release, I would like to see virtualization replication added.

We're missing quite a lot of features on Hyper-V and I'd like to see more flexibility in terms of moving server automation. Unfortunately, the reporting mechanism is not there. They really need to move in the direction of Hyper-V, a hyper-convergence infrastructure kind of solution.

Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage.

Hyper-V could benefit with improvements to their management interface. Also, there are some features that are better on other solutions. For example, VMware is easier to create 3D acceleration than on Hyper-V.

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.

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.

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.

Hyper-V could improve the management tools.

The management of Hyper-V could improve, there is a lot to improve in that area.

The most significant issues have with Hyper-V are the snapshots, local backup, and retention. VMware handles their backups are a lot better. I'd also like to see the ability to virtually hook an input-output device directly to the Hyper-V and the VMs, whether it be a card reader or disk drive. This is something you can do in VMware. We still use customer or software solutions that come on a disk. I often have to rip the data and transfer it over. If I could just throw it in my disk drive and link my disc drive to that VM, that would be beneficial, or if I had a card reader that I could hook straight in. It's not a make-or-break thing, but that would make everything a little bit easier on some installs.

The solution could improve by having virtual restore.

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'd like to see better predictive diagnostics, so I know what's going on with the machines.

I have found it difficult to manage more than one virtual machine.

Microsoft has developed a Windows Admin Center to manage its servers. I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation. Microsoft could also do more modules related to servers and add administration features for that. I like Admin Center, and I want to deploy it in my organization, but the role-based access control feature is limited as we have to give a complete administrative right to other users as well. So these are some limitations that are blocking us. The Admin Center needs to provide a consolidated management interface that is easy to configure and provide a role-based access control so that we can give certain rights to our other users enabling them to administer the servers.

Failure capabilities are insufficient for disaster recovery. Better disaster recovery is required. The technical support is adequate but it could be better.

It's hard to compare it to other solutions. Everything has almost the same offering. It's possible that more deployment tools might make it a bit better. If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult. The next generation should at least include most of the tools of the next operating system.

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.

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.

The product can be a bit difficult to use. I find, for example, Citrix to be much less difficult.

It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better.

VMware has antivirus protection that covers the entire VM. If Microsoft could have something similar to this in Hyper-V, that would be great. Currently, in Hyper-V, we have to have a separate antivirus for each VM. If there could be umbrella coverage to the entire setup, then that would be beneficial.

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.

Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update. For example, if you use Hyper-V, you should restart once a month. It is very hard to operate. Also, it is very slow. The stability and scalability could be improved. It could be more user friendly as well.

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.

Hyper-V is not a type one hypervisor, such as vSphere. When it comes to Hyper-V, it is a role in Windows Server. Hyper-V could have been much leaner and much more powerful, but it becomes only the Hyper-V part of it. There should be some distribution or limit to Hyper-V, such as in vSphere. The missing factor or parameter, in Hyper-V and all of the functionality, is a role it plays inside the Windows operating system. You have to enable those roles. That is something not appreciated in a data center because Windows is a general-purpose operating system, not for the sole purpose of doing these types of operations. They could skim down the version of the operating system and have it customized for virtualization, not as a general-purpose operating system. In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration.

In general, based on my little experience with Hyper-V, I see a lot of obstacles. I think it falls behind the other competitors. There are several areas that can be improved. The network configuration, for example, can be improved. The storage as well, can be improved. I find it very dependent on the active directory as a service, overall. I think they have to review that. I understand that active directory is an integral part of that infrastructure for authentication and logging, etc..., but it can be an obstacle. I think they should review that mechanism. They have to review the overall architecture of that solution. It is a Type-2 virtualization, which means it is not bare metal. That is one problem or one issue that has to be reviewed. In my view as an engineer, the best solutions in this domain are those which are bare metal. Those that are deployed directly on the hardware get the most out of the hardware. But in Microsoft, this is not the case, it is implemented on Windows. If something goes wrong with the Windows machine, all the VMs on it are in trouble. And we all know that Windows has always been a target for viruses and bugs. So in my opinion, they have to review that, to remove that design.

The solution has already improved for us. We have the older version, which was released in 2012, or the end of 2012. There were two releases after that, however, we haven't updated due to the fact that the upgrade costs are too high, and therefore we've migrated to Hyperflex. The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory. If you have other virtualization solutions you have about 95% or 99% of the resources of the host available to you to assign to a virtual server. However, with Windows, that number is less than 95% and is more like 90%. There is a margin reserved for the server itself. That's a downside. The solution needs to improve integration with hyper-converged infrastructure solutions, or SGI solutions. We were going with SGI for our next virtualization solution. I read reviews about the Hyper-V causing issues with SGI. When we decided to go with SGI, I decided against going with Hyper-V due to the integration issues that it had.

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.

If you have a lot of Hyper-V servers then you will need an additional product, which is the System Center Virtual Machine Manager, so that you can control the host environments of all of your virtual machines. It would be nice if they provided a free management console that we could use to manage all of the hosts for no additional fee. There should be a way to restart the services and not the whole station, which would minimize downtime, especially when updating the operating system. This is a feature that everybody needs.

It's not completely stable because your stack becomes bloated.

We have our scientific network, and it's run off the university sever, and we need two servers to optimize our scientific work, such as the mathematics work. Then you have to work with Python and Java, and the Microsoft Windows desktop system isn't the best option for this kind of work. Use the Hyper-V as your basic layer, for binding and administration of the systems to the hardware. In the virtualization yo can combined the best of Linux, Unix and Microsoft Windows.

Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement. There could also be improvements in virtualization, performance, management, monitoring, reporting, recommendations, integration, customization, and technical support. Performance and up-scaling are the most important areas in need of improvement.

I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved.

The management interface is in need of the biggest improvement. There are a few gaps in there when I compare with VMware. Some additional monitoring features would be helpful.

It should be deployed with OS so there is no need to install OS separately, only select the OS and get it ready.

There is a problem with high-availability if the load is too high.

There are usability issues with Hyper-V's manager. VMware has a much better system, but it's a much more expensive solution. The interface is not uniform at all, which makes the manager difficult to use. It's not very convenient and isn't smartly designed. They need to reimagine it to make it more effective. There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager. It might be helpful if Microsoft could recommend the use of STV. Then, at least you can use Nano products to manage the Hyper-V server. Currently, I don't use STV. I'm not too familiar with this product. It would be helpful if Microsoft could provide some guidance as to its usage and the options available and why users might opt for them so that we have a better understanding of what we can do and how we can use the services on offer effectively.

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 believe further improvement can be made on the cluster manager side, not specifically Hyper-V related. There are some storage problems which do occur in high load systems, especially SQL workloads. These do not necessarily affect uptime, but it can evolve into a larger problem if not attended to. Otherwise, the product is fantastic.

There are bugs, and this should be resolved by Microsoft. In the future, I would like to see how the hyper-converged infrastructure works with the technology.

The backup has room for improvement.

The only issues we have had recently are with Windows updates that are built into the Windows server with Hyper-V. In the future, I would like to see a simplification of licensing of this product. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to have more monitoring.

Perhaps improvement should be made when you want to change some configuration on VM's, and you have to shut down the VM in order to do so. A major improvement would be a configuration change. So, when you change the parameter of VM, the other one can still be running.

It needs to improve compatibility with third party software.

The networking portion of Hyper-V needs improvement.

The cost and licensing can be improved.

I think there is room for improvement in terms of the cloud solutions.

The live migration feature needs improvement.

I am using this solution with E-Notes. I heard that there will be future improvements in integration of the E-notes systems. This would be very helpful. I also am waiting for improvements in networking and life migration.

The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement. Some customers have been complaining of running into Immobility Licensing Restrictions. They were running on an ELA, and there was no flexibility with a volume license agreement. In addition, it would be nice to have the ability to assign more dynamically, like VM-ware does. Furthermore, it would be nice to return the SRM feature back into Hyper-V so that you're not looking at a virtual box which is a cheap version, but that you're looking at enterprise, you're looking at VM-ware. If this could be placed into a one-button feature, that would be very attractive.

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.

An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems.

I think the console could use some improvement for the backups. The features should be improved. I know a lot of people who are considering moving to Hyper-V, but are skittish to do so because you need a system center virtual manager or a specialist to integrate the solution.

The corrupted volume is a problem.

It might make it easier to move VMs across Hotmail hosts. This application process may make it a little bit easier.

Hyper-V is hosted on OS but if your OS scratches you are in big trouble. In addition, if a host fails, automatically the machine and the virtual machine should boot from another source. Those type of features would benefit Hyper-V.

Sometimes it is a mess, and it should be something that could be easily fixed. It made us have to deal with fixing the bugs.

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.

I think the management tools have room for improvement.

It needs to improve the handling of the amount of storage available. We currently have around 400 users.

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.