Citrix XenServer Reviews

My organization is into construction engineering, and we currently use Hypervisor in six farms. We use the solution for server and desktop virtualization. We have one farm with 40 virtual machines for our engineers. We couldn't do it as a terminal server because the licensing model of the different companies' products we are working with doesn't allow terminal servers. We had to virtualize whole machines. During Corona, all our workers needed home offices. We were lacking in the way we used it before Corona, where we only used it to virtualize security and administration. We had to expand it to other workers.

Citrix Hypervisor is simple to use.

The user interface's graphics are pretty bad. I have to go into the command line interface to reach any solution. If I get in trouble, I'll need the CLI. When there are no problems, the GUI is enough.

All the same, if there are troubles in Hypervisor, such as If you have had a brownout or a server breakdown, bare metal, or split-brain problems, you can't mend these problems with the graphical user interface. You always have to go through the CLI. We once lost connection to our storage during an update from version 7 to 8. There were no particular problems, but the effect was that all the metadata had gone. So we had 20 or 40 server images but no metadata. It had vanished completely. We had to mount each disk and look into where it may have been before, and we needed to reconstruct all the metadata from scratch. Last time we had our first update in VMware VxRail, into the previous release, from 6 to 7, and we had to start the update, wait, and then it finished without any problems. It was really easy.

In Citrix, you always have to look for reasons why it might not have worked. Even if you use the rolling upgrade, it may happen that in the middle of the installation, a window pops up for some reason, making it impossible to finish the installation. It's a platform that doesn't work, and you have to reconstruct a lot by hand.

We have been working with Citrix Hypervisor for about 11 years. I'm using version 8.2.

I rate Citrix Hypervisor's stability a six out of ten. The product works for small, medium, and enterprise companies. We have small offices with two or three people, where we give them one server with Citrix implemented, with a backup service, a local data repository, and all functions present in one system. It has worked for years, with and without former services, working even better with former services. We also have our headquarters with 600 workers. Over there, we have never faced really hard problems, but the solution is too dependent on people. We do not have the manpower to keep it running all the time because we have holidays when some staff members are not available. Failure can lead to breakdowns where all 600 people cannot work.

At our peak, we had about 600 workers working from home and 600 virtual machines running on our farms.

Technical support was a problem. We had a consultant where I'm currently working because we had performance problems. The consultant reviewed our installations and said they were okay because we did the installation the same way they would have. Yet the problem was not solved. We virtualized security and administration, but people always faced difficulties, wanting their PCs back instead of a terminal. It was a smart installation that was easy to manage and roll out to computers, but the user experience was so bad that we reverted it. Today, every user has a PC again. The only people that still use Citrix are those not working from home. It's such a poor solution for those working from home because the solution's performance is not like it is at the office. At the office, there is no acceptance of low performance. We contacted Citrix in Munich and another consultant on the Internet, and there was no way to solve this performance problem. Even today, I don't know to whom or which way I should go to get support from Citrix. There is no address or community I could contact if I have problems. Tech support is not as good as it could be.

At first, the initial setup looks very straightforward. It could become very complex if you have needs with performance, drivers, special hardware, or USB interfaces. Implementing the product from scratch for one farm takes a day at most. We need two people for deployment, one for the server and one for the users.

We used it only for some desktop licenses, so the pricing is great. We used the free licenses for server virtualization.

My problem with Hypervisor is its weak service. We formerly had SAN Desktop, and I could install as many SAN Desktop and server licenses as needed to make them work without cost. It is not cheap at the moment, but the prices are low. Now I have to look for an alternative, but I have to look for the prices first and to make a budget. I am looking for different products, but the alternative must be from VMware. The decision was made two years ago, and we have to make it work this year or next year latest.

We changed to VMware because our boss says it is all in the GUI, but during the implementation of the three first farms, we had an external technician, and most of his work was on the command line interface. It looks a little better, but if you have problems or you need to customize it, it's always on the CLI. I am a real Citrix fan, but that opinion is not important at this time.

If you can find someone who provides support, it's a good experience. We might not have always reached our targets or found a solution, but customer support has always made time for us and given us good tips. I have handled problems by printing out all the documentation, which has helped me through eleven years of using the solution.

Citrix Hypervisor needs to be easier to update and upgrade and be reversible if something goes wrong.

It's of no use if you have a system that's not ready or does not work. We need an update that starts and runs. And if it does not work for any reason, it should be able to be reverted to a point before, especially if there are simple failures, like losing metadata, because it is a lot of work to reconstruct it from nothing. The simple updating and maintenance are better than today. It's a really good product. If it were up to me, we would still use it and use it in the future.

Overall, I rate the product an eight or nine out of ten.

Citrix is easy to use and is stable.

Citrix is not investing in the virtual surroundings. Third-party tools are bad for Citrix at the moment. No good backup recovery is available. On Microsoft, we can use Veeam, which is a great product. However, in Citrix, we were using Unitrends and Alike, but they are more or less good tools. We're not installing Unitrends again because they don't have good support for their product. And if you run into trouble, you're left in trouble, and that's not what I pay for. Alike is working stable with recovery. You can recover the system and so on. But similarly, if you run into trouble, you will be left alone, and that's not very good if you pay money for a contract. In the end, if you compare it to Veeam or other programs running on other platforms, Alike and Unitrends are behind in what's technical and the possibilities.

I have used this solution for more than ten years.

It's stable if you have the experience. We have had machines with uptime of more than 1,000 days without patching or anything. I rate Citrix Hypervisor's stability a nine out of ten.

You can use the solution on enterprises. Citrix is not a company for small businesses only. We have Citrix Application Manager, and in the SAP surroundings, we have Citrix Landscapes. But that was years ago. The solution is scalable, and everything is fine, but Citrix does not improve the product enough. If you compare Citrix Hypervisor to others, the others are growing better and faster. I don't know what Citrix is doing, though. Moreover, Citrix is just doing cloud products and licenses.

I have personal contact with Citrix people, so technical support is easy. I don't know about the normal support.

If you have a small installation, it takes two hours.

Citrix Hypervisor is expensive. The cloud licenses are expensive. Only Citrix is earning money off those. It's the same with VMware and Microsoft.

If you need a low management tool, a black box as your virtual machine, Citrix Hypervisor is a very good solution. If you compare Citrix Hypervisor to Microsoft Hyper-V or VMware, both can do many more things, but you'll have to do much more work to get them up and running. Citrix is an easier solution than the others, but the problem is Citrix is not investing in that virtual surrounding. Hyper-V is now more technological than the others, so we will not install Citrix Hypervisor anymore. Our newer installations are running mostly on VMware and partially on Microsoft. We are still running some solutions on Citrix, but the next change will be to Microsoft or VMware.

I work on services and get good money on this, but Citrix or the other hypervisors are just black boxes for me. They're not making me money. Citrix just sells licenses and cloud products, while my money is in programming, business processing, and so on. Citrix is a stable platform and very good, but I have to look to the future, so I would say that the next platform for me would not be Citrix.

If anyone plans to choose Citrix Hypervisor, it is a good choice if they need a stable platform. The performance is good, and everything is fine, but technological development is the problem. Citrix is behind, and it's dangerous to invest in a technology that is behind. All the virtual machines running on the systems will need something. Look at Windows 11, for example. They need special hardware simulations to run on virtual machines because they expect some chips. I don't know if Citrix is developing enough in that direction.

Looking at just the technical parts, the ability, and performance, I rate Citrix Hypervisor an eight out of ten. However, if you look for development and what is coming up in the future, I rate Citrix Hypervisor a five out of ten.

I'm in the government, and we are using it in the office. We use it as a desktop and for some virtual apps. 

We are using it at hospitals, and it allows very quick log-ons/offs. Cards can be used to tap on and off, which is very efficient, and it allows people to move around the hospital with ease.

All the features are good. We are not using it completely since we are using it as a second product in the company. It's not the primary solution. Primarily, we are using VMware.

The initial setup is easy.

It's stable. 

The solution can scale.

Technical support has been responsive.

The ROI is quite good.

We find the pricing to be reasonable. 

The interface has to be updated. The management console has to be a console that can work on any platform instead of just Windows. The problem is that Mac users cannot install the management console, so they cannot manage the XenServer. 

We'd like to be able to move servers or machines from one pool to another pool due to the fact that it has a maximum, right now, of how many servers you can have in a pool or physical machines. Right now, if you want to move between the machines or servers, I have to close it down and move it. I cannot live migrate anything. That would be nice to do.

I've used the solution since the beginning, around 2001 or 2002. 

It has very good, reliable stability. It doesn't crash or freeze, and there are no bugs or glitches. I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. 

We have about 100 physical servers. We also have between 200 and 250 people using the product. 

The scalability is good. It's easy to expand. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We do plan to increase usage as it is a product that isn't as expensive as VMware.

Technical support is fine. Normally, when I have a problem I just send it to Citrix and they fix it.

Positive

We are using VMware as well, and we tend to use it above Citrix. 

VMware requires more expensive licensing. Therefore, Citrix is very attractive for you if you want to save money. 

The initial setup is not complex. It might take about 20 minutes, at a maximum, to deploy. 

We have three or four admins that are able to handle deployment and maintenance tasks at this time. 

We handled the setup process internally. We did not need outside assistance. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using Citrix. 

Pricing may be going up, which is not good. We pay for the solution on a yearly basis. 

There are no costs beyond the standard licensing fee.

I'm an end-user.

I'd advise potential new users to try the solution for themselves. It can do a lot of things. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for virtual machines, in order to boost them or back them up. It has high availability as well.

The product is highly stable and very robust. Most importantly, we can rely on it. It's plug-and-play and we don't have to worry about it. Once you have your infrastructure set up, it just runs. They also have an emphasis on good management.

The solution offers high availability.

It allows for good backups.

The stability has been fine. It's excellent.

It is nice that it is on the cloud.

Creating snapshots and templates is very useful for us.

We can easily migrate VMs from one host to another.

We'd like them to add more automation to the product.

I've been using the solution for about two years. 

We have not had any major issues with stability. It's very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The solution is highly scalable. You can add as many nodes as you want. It is highly satisfactory.

For in-house usage, we have about 30 people on it. We also have customers who use it, and that is 200 or more. 

We previously used Cloud Disaster Recovery.

The solution is very easy to implement. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of ease of use. It's straightforward. 

We have two to three people in-house that can handle the deployment. 

The solution is highly affordable since it is an open-source product. There are no extra costs for us. We did pay for implementation and local support.

We did evaluate other options before choosing this solution. 

I'm a just a user.

I'd advise people to get as much information as possible before implementing it. It's a good idea to consult specialists in the field and to look at your budget and the duration of the implementation. It will help you make the right decision before jumping in.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The primary use case is for server virtualization. We have created multiple logical servers on a single physical server.

The most valuable feature is its stability.

The solution needs better backup facilities that are available for virtual machines to create servers on. Currently, taking a backup of virtual machines running on XenServer or the Citrix Hypervisor is difficult. There has to be a better way or facility available within sites Hypervisor, Citrix Hypervisor, to take the backup of virtual machines.

I have been using the solution for over five years.

The solution is extremely stable.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes a couple of hours.

There are three editions available and I believe they are perpetual licenses. One is a free edition, one is advanced and another is a premium edition. The advanced edition is around, $4,000 USD.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

I recommend the solution.

I suggest that anyone interested in using the solution should have other backup solutions set up alongside it.

The main use case is virtualization—to virtualize the virtual machines. We also install Hypervisor to provide external storage for the client. Hypervisor connects all the server hardware with the external storage, then we create VMs for the client, and they can install and use their applications on the virtual machines.

It's easy to migrate VMs using Hypervisor.

The main problem with Citrix Hypervisor is getting readily available backup solutions for it. It would be wonderful if Hypervisor were better integrated with third-party backup solutions. 

I've been using Citrix Hypervisor for the last two years.

Hypervisor is highly stable. We've hardly had any issues with it.

In terms of scalability, I would say Hypervisor is in the middle tier. I can't really speak to its enterprise-wide scalability, but it's very much okay on the mid-range level. From my experience, I can say it's good for small and medium-sized companies. I've never deployed it for a large enterprise. 

I'm very satisfied with Citrix support. 

Installing Hypervisor is really simple. It's the simplest setup I've ever done before. We used a team to deploy it, and it doesn't take much time, like two or three hours tops. That includes installing Hypervisor, creating all of the VMs, and installing the application on the VMs. The main form of maintenance we do is upgrading. And maybe sometimes there's a component failure, so we have to replace the component. 

Citrix Hypervisor is relatively cost-effective, even when you factor in vendor or third-party support. Of course, there can be additional costs, depending on the complexity of the solution, but the standard installation is cost-effective.

I rate Citrix Hypervisor nine out of 10. It's easy to deploy and cost-effective. And the support, whether the vendor support or even third party support, it's readily available. So, the person should have the rest of mind in deploying this solution.

We use Citrix Hypervisor to have greater control over our infrastructure. For example, file services, domain controllers, databases, and the entire active directories within it.

We are able to easily manage our infrastructure with the use of Citrix Hypervisor.

Citrix Hypervisor integrates easily and I can manage the infrastructure better. If I need to take a machine down to expand the hard drive, I do not have to physically be here. I do not need to order new equipment or new hard drives. I can shut it down, increase the drive space and bring it back up. I find that hypervisor updates are extremely easy to do.

I find that the features in Citrix Hypervisor are not as rich as with VMware. It would be a benefit if they had some of the other features VMware has, such as the ability to expand a drive on the fly. You do not have to take down the machine to do it but in Citrix you do.

In a future release, Citrix Hypervisor should update its features to provide as many features as VMware does.

I have been using Citrix Hypervisor for nearly two years.

Citrix Hypervisor has been very stable. I have been impressed with updating of the hosts. For example, in the interface, you will be notified when there are updates and to perform the updates is quite simple.

The solution is scalable. If you need additional resources, you could add hosts. When I started at my current company we had three hosts and now we have five. We have increased the number of servers that we have, along with memory, and could then provide additional offerings because we have the resources to do so.

We have approximately 130 to 150 users using the solution in my company.

Citrix Hypervisor's technical support is very good. They provide high-level support and are very responsive. Once you are in contact with the support, they will remote into your system, and take a look at how the system is operating internally. They usually resolve any issues relatively fast.

I have previously used VMware.

The installation of Citrix Hypervisor is simple once you get used to it. My background was more with VMware, but when I joined this organization, they used Citrix. Once you learn the intricacies it is simple. There are some elements of the installations that are complex that could be simplified. If you have used a similar solution before this one it not too hard to figure out.

I am the only one in the company that does the maintenance of the solution.

The solution virtualizes the environment which saves on environmental and hardware costs.

There is a license required to use this solution. You need a license on every server, but the license is more for support than anything else. The cost is not expensive, it is a fraction of the cost of VMware. When you look at the cost overall and features, Citrix Hypervisor has a very attractive offering.

I rate Citrix Hypervisor an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for VDI technology. 

There's no complexity in using the tool, especially with the VBI integration. It works very well and has proven to be a stable platform. I have experienced attacks, such as ransomware, but my Citrix Hypervisor virtual machines were protected. This is due to its hardened operating system and DNS, which successfully protected the virtual machines on that platform.

The tool's most valuable features are high availability and load balancing. If one hardware server goes out of service in a multiple-host cluster, my workload automatically starts on another hardware host. Load balancing adjusts based on the load on a particular virtual machine or hardware, automatically balancing the load across multiple hosts. This ensures I get optimal performance from my resources.

It would be very helpful if I could browse the data store directly in the GUI, similar to VMware and Hyper-V. This feature would be particularly useful when something goes wrong with a virtual machine or virtual disk.

I have been working with the product for 12 years.

I have seen environments where we started with a two-node or three-node cluster and scaled up to eight nodes. My company has 35 users. 

Citrix Hypervisor's initial deployment is simple. We update it every six months to one year. Except for major releases or patch updates, the solution doesn't require much maintenance. It does not require many resources regarding people or trained personnel. It is easy to maintain, and if I place a person to understand the Hypervisor or the patching process, he or she can manage it easily. 

The solution offers value for money. 

We are currently working on a policy within our organization to identify areas where we can optimize resources. For instance, in troubleshooting, we get repeated calls from certain areas. Suppose we can automate tasks like upgrades, monitoring of IT infrastructure, and monitoring of logs and security infrastructure. In that case, we aim to integrate AI into these areas so that repetitive tasks can be managed by AI or similar solutions.

When I look at backup solutions like Commvault, I see that these companies support Citrix Hypervisor. However, a limited number of software companies or solution providers in IT directly integrate with Citrix Hypervisor. If that ecosystem can be expanded, it would help us increase our installed base on Citrix Hypervisor.

VMware has changed its policy and is not providing certain licensing to enterprise customers. So, in that case, customers have to buy the entire package, even if they only want the Hypervisor. Hyper-V and Citrix Hypervisor are very good solutions for those cases.

If you have a test and development system or a production system, or if you want to deploy a disaster recovery setup cost-effectively and with no complexity in various integrations, Citrix Hypervisor can be the best choice.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.