Citrix Hypervisor Reviews

This product makes up our infrastructure and we use it to host several servers.

The continued uptime of our virtual machines is good. If there's a problem with one host, the machines get migrated off. This is something that works well.

Live migration is something that can be improved.

Modification of virtual machines, while they're still powered on, should be supported.

I have been working with Citrix Hypervisor for about a year and a quarter.

The newest revision appears to be pretty stable.

This is a scalable solution.

I have worked with other hypervisors in the past and Citrix is a little more basic.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Citrix is a good low-cost alternative to VMware, so if budgeting is an issue then I would recommend it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

On-premises

I primarily use the solution for virtualization. I have about five virtual servers on it.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is very fast. It also works very well for physically small servers.

The USB support for the virtual server needs improvement.

I've been using the solution for half a yer.

The solution is very stable. It works very well.

My environment is very small, so I don't have much experience with scaling the solution.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I handled the implementation myself.

We use the free version, not the commercial version of the solution.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I would recommend the solution. I was looking for a solution that works well on a small server, and this solution works very well for me.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

XenServer have four different editions: Free, Advanced, Enterprise, Platinum. You can ask for free license at no cost but you have to renew it each year. The free edition lacks some features that are only available on the other three editions. We can easily access XenServer from XenCenter; we can even manage multiple XenServer from a single XenCenter.

XenCenter is not available on Mac OS X or Linux, so we can only manage XenServer(s) from Windows. XenServer also lack of web based administration interface. We have to install XenServer on a dedicated machine, we can’t even have XenServer dual boot with another OS because XenServer installation will wipe the whole drive before installation. The processor that we use has to support virtualization (Intel-VT or AMD-V).

Good alternative of VMware ESXi, you can use free version to try the product first and perhaps move to the paid version if you need support or you need features that is not available in the free version.

We have customers that are using Citrix Hypervisor in different environments, such as with storage and without.

Citrix Hypervisor does a great job overall, such as the virtualization of the host. It's very easy to manage the virtual machine, to create, and configure high availability.

It can be useful to have a web management program because we have to install our client-server. We have to properly manage the host, if we had administration tools through a web interface it would be a benefit.

I used Citrix Hypervisor within the last 12 months.

Citrix Hypervisor is stable.

I have found Citrix Hypervisor to be scalable.

We don't use the support. It's really rare to use the support because we are the customer support. I don't remember the last time we spoke to Citrix support directly.

The setup is very easy.

The time it takes for the implementation depends on the size of the infrastructure, but specifically, with Hypervisor, we don't need a large amount of staff, one technician can handle the process.

Citrix Hypervisor is a very good solution and it really fits a lot of environments. Everybody considers VMware or Hyper-V from Microsoft as the main solution, but everybody should consider Citrix Hypervisor for their use case.

I rate Citrix Hypervisor a nine out of ten.

There are some points to improve, but it's a really good solution.

We primarily use the solution for deploying. Usually we're deploying infrastructure based on XenServer desktop solutions.

The solution is easy to deploy. It's very easy to understand problems and read logs.

The solution would benefit from faster technical support.

The solution should add session sharing in future releases. It would be helpful if, for example, you could switch a user from one terminal server to another terminal server without loosing the session and without the need to log off and then log on again. This way we can put in place some services, without asking the user to log out. We can just move users from one server to another and the user would not notice any interruption.

I've been using the solution for six or seven months.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is extremely scalable.

We're not satisfied with technical support. It's very slow.

The solution is easy to deploy.

The solution is free to use.

We use the private cloud deployment model.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It depends on what an organization requires, but I would recommend the solution.

The high availability facility.

Use of this solution has reduced our costs, and we have a collection of over three 42U server rack cabinets.

The web management provided by Citrix needs to be improved.

I have used XenServer since 2012.

We had some issues with the iSCSI multipath setup.

Some older versions of the Intel 550 chipset caused some instability with XenServer.

No issues yet.

Customer Service:

It's good.

Technical Support:

It's good.

We had a previous solution and changed because the solution lacked some features that we needed.

It was straightforward.

The whole setup was done in-house.

It's large enough that it is appreciated by management.

• VMWare
• Hyper-V

Just use the best solution for your own business.

We primarily use the solution for Citrix worker resources.

The price is the solution's most valuable feature.

The manageability of the solution needs improvement. It's an extremely bad product to handle. 

The solution needs to offer better implementation of shared storage.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is not stable.

The solution is scalable. 

I don't like the cluster functionality, but it's scalable. You can put a new service inside, and it works. The only thing is the shared storage, which does not have a good implementation. With LVM, it's a bad idea to use real partitioning. It's advisable instead to use a container file like Hyper-V or VMware.

Technical support is too slow. It takes too long. Especially in comparison with VMware. Their the support is much better.

In most cases the set up is straightforward. In special cases, especially for shared storage, it's not a great implementation experience.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

I would advise others to only to use it with functionality where the high availability is available through other mechanisms, like Citrix, and not to use the features from the product itself.

I'd rate the solution four out of ten.

Much cheaper than other major Hypervisors (VMware, Hyper-V). Easy to install and use at the beginning.

Hard to maintain system because Xen's management tool (XenCenter) isn't very useful. For example XenCenter does not have any orchestration features (as opposed to SCOM, SCCM, etc.. from MS). However Xen provides APIs to develop other tools. As a result, Xen is cheap but a good value.