Hyper-V Reviews

I primarily use it for server virtualization and protection services.

Using cluster with Hyper-V had a major impact on our protection environment. So all applications were virtualized using Hyper-V.

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.

The product is stable. We have had no problems.

The scalability is good. It is enough for our needs. We are 40 users in our organization. We used a team of five to maintain the solution. 

We have not needed technical support.

For our company it was a good investment.

The price is quite fair. It is not too expensive.

We were looking at other options, such as Azure. But, we decided to stay with the Microsoft Hyper-V.

I would advise other people that this is a good solution.

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.

Our primary use case of this solution is for implementing the private cloud over the system center.

Hyper-V 2016 is very impressive. The virtualized applications and real-time addition of the VMA is quite a good feature, which is competitive to VMware. It's not VMware but it's close to it and is a competitor.

The networking portion of Hyper-V needs improvement.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product. We have over 100 users and we are growing towards a more virtualized solution.

I have previous experience with Citrix and VMware products.

The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago but I remember it was complicated.

The price of this solution makes it a worthwhile purchase for our organization. We have all of the features we need within a cost-effective solution.

This product costs less than other competitor products on the market.

This solution is much easier to manage than a bare metal machine. It is so easy to manage something through the virtual machine.

The live migration feature needs improvement.

The stability is acceptable for us. We do not have problems with it.

It is scalable. We are not such a big company, but it suits our needs. We have less than 500 employees using this solution. We have three system administrators maintaining the solution. 

We previously used VMware and then moved to Hyper-V. We did so primarily because we already had an agreement with Microsoft. 

The initial setup was easy. It took us about a year to deploy because we had to convert 90% of the bare metal machines to Hyper-V.

We have an agreement with Microsoft so this came with the solution. The pricing is okay for us. 

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 primarily use this solution as a hypervisor.

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. 

Once it is setup, there is no problem.

It is a hypervisor, so if you had more servers, you get more scale.

The initial setup is not straightforward, it is a bunch of Microsoft parts that you have to arrange yourself. You have to set up the networking so that you have redundancy. You then have to go in, cluster two Windows servers, which is not so easy. The Hyper-V becomes simple, but it does not happen if the other things are not properly configured.

It takes roughly four hours to install. 

There is no ROI for us, because it is a free product.

It is free for us so that was a prime factor for choosing this solution.

We are currently seriously considering migrating to VMware solutions.

It is good for small installations. If you are looking to do anything fancy, this is is not a good choice.

We use the Hypervisor and manage the VMs. We then get a 360 degree view of the infrastructure, hardware, networking, storage, VMs, and more.

The most valuable feature is the ability to integrate the Hypervisor center from one console.

The cost and licensing can be improved. 

It is a very stable product.

We have servers in several African countries. All of the management of the infrastructure is done through the system's center. We have about 400 users who are currently using this solution. It is definitely scalable.

We used to use GenServer. Unfortunately, GenServer does not support a 10-gigabyte network, but Hyper-V does. This was a major factor in our switch to Hyper-V.

The deployment was straightforward. It took us about one week for each site. This included Hyper-V and the entire infrastructure.

In terms of the licensing, if you are using Microsoft Windows 100%, it is okay, but, when you start mixing other environments it becomes quite tricky.

We have seriously considered Nutanix Acropolis Hypervisor. It is more cost-effective.

Unfortunately, due to cost, we have begun to look at other products in the market.

The most valuable feature is the high availability of the solution. 

The corrupted volume is a problem.

It is pretty stable.

We used to use VMware.

The initial setup was very complex. It needs to be simplified. It took us about a day to deploy.

The licensing is pretty straightforward. 

My advice to someone considering this solution is to back up the whole configuration. Also, you have to have things well documented and to take into consideration the maintenance times. Furthermore, updating the operating systems, host operating systems and guest operating systems is extremely important, otherwise, it could lead to unnecessary downtime.