Hyper-V Reviews

I have been making solutions around the Hyper-V bundles for my clients. For example, hyper-converged infrastructure, such as in vSAN and Vsphere for company data centers.

The solution is very powerful, easy to use, user-friendly, and integrates well with Windows. If you are looking for a hundred percent Microsoft environment it would be a good idea to go with Hyper-V. They work wonderfully together.

There are a lot more features and is easier to use compared to previous releases. They were using PowerCLI for the management but now it is all GUI-based which has made it a lot easier to use.

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.

I have been involved with Hyper-V for approximately two years.

The solution is stable in my experience.

The technical support is good because there are a lot of administrators out there in the market who are well-versed in Microsoft technologies.

The installation is straightforward. The installation time can vary depending on if you have preloaded configurations. If you were to do it from scratch then it would take approximately 20 minutes.

Hyper-V is cost-effective and is a one-time purchase. Microsoft has multiple licensing options available, such as a subscription model and an outside purchase model that customers can choose as per their requirements.

I have evaluated VMware vSphere.

Hyper-V is very popular in the market for data centers and most of my clients are using Microsoft in some form or another but it might not be their core ERP.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

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.

I don't personally have strong experience with Hyper-V, but as a company we are reselling it.

Based on my experience, it is stable.

It is not that scalable or flexible.

On a scale from one to 5, I would rate the scalability a three.

The initial setup is easy.

I think Microsoft is a little better in pricing. But as I said, I'm not a pricing person, and I can't speak with great confidence on that. But in general, Microsoft is a little lower than BMI.

I do not highly recommend Hyper-V.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Hyper-V a six.

In terms of advice to people looking to implement Hyper-V, I would tell them not to rely much on the Hyper-V solution in terms of flexibility and scalability. It is a stable solution, but overall, considering the backup, the replication, and the whole range of features that VMR offers, I think that it's better if they look at VMR or other contenders, in this technology.

Hyper-V acts as the hypervisor for our virtualization platform. We are using it on a three-tier infrastructure and it manages our VMs that store our files and applications. 

The most valuable feature is that it's an end-to-end solution.

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

We have been using Hyper-V since 2008.

Stability-wise, it is okay but not great. I'd say that it works but it's not perfect.

Hyper-V is limited when it comes to scalability. If you have a data center license then you can scale up or down, or use the main virtual machines on the server. However, if you have a normal, or standard license, you can only run two virtual machine instances.

We have approximately 1,000 users.

I have not had much experience with technical support.

We previously used vSphere but we switched because VMware costs a lot and we have a small environment.

The installation and initial setup are very easy. It takes about five minutes to deploy.

We implemented it ourselves. We have three people in our team for deployment and maintenance.

Our licensing fees are paid for as a package with the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. We have to pay for our data center licenses.

This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security.

In summary, this product is not perfect but it works. At this point, we have not yet decided how long we will continue using it. This is something that we'll decide, moving forward.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

In our administration, we don't have new computers or new servers, but we want to optimize our scientific work. We're using it with two devices for scientific work and administration work.

Microsoft's a good name for legacy support and solutions.

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.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft an eight.

We are just exploring the possibilities to see if it was a better alternative to VirtualBox, for running on a Windows host.

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

I have only just started using this solution. It's been one to two weeks.

I am using the version with Windows 10 Pro.

It's too early to tell at the moment. We are still new to using Hyper-V.

We have not yet explored this area. At the moment, I am the only user.

I have not contacted technical support.

I am currently using VirtualBox and Hyper-V on different VMs.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install.

It took an hour to get the on-premises system running.

I completed the setup and implementation.

It's still too early to know if I would recommend it or not.

I am still in the processing phase, so depending on how it goes, we may continue to use this solution. At this point, we intend to use it.

With what I know so far, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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 are using Hyper-V to host a few Linux virtual machines.

The most valuable features are ease of use, and it gets the job done in a straightforward manner.

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.

We have been using Hyper-V for the past four or five years.

We have a few support applications that run on top of this solution, so we just have a handful of people who use it. I would say that there are five or six users.

At this point, we do not have plans to increase usage.

I have not personally been in contact with technical support.

The installation was straightforward and I don't think that we had any major issues there. I think that it took approximately one day to deploy.

The implementation was done by our in-house IT people. We have one system administrator that takes care of maintenance.

For what we use this product for, it is pretty basic and it is good enough for our purposes.

Our main complaint is about the administration interface.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for managing our virtual infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly and easy to use. All you have to do is mount the VM and start it.

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

I have been working with Hyper-V for eight years.

The stability is generally good, although it depends on the size of your workload.

Scalability really depends on how much you want to expand.

The technical support from Microsoft is good and they're able to easily assist you.

The licensing is good for a data center environment.

Hyper-V is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.