Hyper-V Reviews

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

I've been using Hyper-V since about 2012.

Hyper-V has been pretty good. I have no complaints about the stability. 

It scales well so far, but I think we're nearing the edge of that. We have somewhere in the region of about 200 users.

The support could be better.

I can't say setting up Hyper-V was particularly complicated. The deployment was about two months with the help of some integrators.

I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs.

I rate Hyper-V seven out of 10. It's good for what it does. If you have a small or medium-scale acclimatization, it's an excellent solution. But in terms of scaling larger, you might want to consider something else.

We use Hyper-V for virtualization.

I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users.

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.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The solution could be more stable as it is vulnerable to viruses, ransomware, and malware.

We have approximately 100 customers using this solution.

The support from Microsoft is good.

The installation is very easy, it takes approximately 30 minutes.

We have three supporting engineers that do the implementation of the solution.

There is a perpetual license to use the solution and there are additional fees for support.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to host our corporate infrastructure servers. 

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.

It is very stable. We have not had issues with it crashing itself.

I do not have experience with the technical support. I usually research the answers myself and fix any pending issues.

It was very straightforward for us. We did it in-house and it was very easy.

We have definitely have seen a return on our investment. 

I wish the licensing was simpler and allowed for a greater number of VMs with the Microsoft standard licensing. Overall I think it's fair. The pricing is definitely fair.

My primary use case of this solution is to increase memory for the virtual machine which can be easily done on Hyper-V.

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.

It is a stable product.

We haven't had a need for technical support.

In comparison to VMware, Hyper-V is much better at restoration and backup. It is also much faster than VMware. 

The setup was quite straightforward. It took 15-20 minutes to deploy. 

I do not have experience with the licensing of the product.

It is definitely the toughest competitor for VMware. There is room for improvement for automation. If that was implemented, it would place Hyper-V on the same realm as VMware.

We use Hyper-V for system virtualization.

The solution is easy to configure.

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

I have used Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The performance of Hyper-V is good.

I have used VMware vSphere, I have found it to be better than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is easy to set up even though the management is a headache. For example, if you want to do integrations or troubleshooting on the platform it's really difficult.

Licensing needs to be a lot easier to manage with Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware is easier.

My advice to other thinking about implementing Hyper-V be aware of the use case that you're going to need Hyper-V for. If you're going to use it on an operational scale, for example, hundreds of Hyper-V hosts, I would recommend rather going with vSphere instead of Hyper-V because the management capabilities of vSphere are better. When you are managing several hundred hosts, it's better to manage within the vSphere environment instead of the system center.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day.

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.

I've been using it for, maybe, three years.

It is not stable. There are problems with backup as well.

It is not scalable.

I am satisfied with technical support.

It is very easy to install, and it can be done in a day.

I installed it myself.

I don't recommend Hyper-V and would rate it at six on a scale from one to ten.

We are currently using this solution for Exchange, as a demo controller and an antivirus, as well. We have lots of servers on our Hyper-V.

I think the cluster environment is a good feature of Hyper-V because, if something happens, then it will automatically move to some other mode. This is a great feature of the solution.

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. 

We have over 80 servers on our Hyper-V with one guy handling the deployment. We do have plans to increase our usage in the future. 

The setup was straightforward and easy for our company. The deployment was fast. 

The pricing is not much. We have a very big environment, and pricing is no problem. We did not spend much time looking at other products, though.

Due to our needs, we installed Hyper-V and VMware. It would be nice if there was a link between the HYper-V and the VMware for a test environment. When we cannot keep the two together, everything becomes a problem for the site.

Our primary use of this solution is for production of our office business needs.

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

We have 400 users of this solution, and use three staff members for deployment and maintenance.

We previously used a regular Windows 2012 server before using Hyper-V. 

I do not have any comments about pricing or licensing of the product.