Hyper-V Reviews

The best hypervisor in the market! From Server 2008 to Server 2012 Hyper-v technology has evolved rapidly.As more organisations are using virtualisation, key features like VM replication, Virtual SAN Manager and Live migrations - enable organisations to design fail over and backup solutions, without the need to purchase other products.We have been evaluating Hyper-2012 server core for 3 months, up to now - we have had no issues with any virtual machines or the underlining operating system.

To manage Windows Hyper-V Server 2012, you need an additional server 2012 server. Not very cost effective - I think Microsoft should consider pushing a Hyper-V Management console update to Server 2008 R2 to be able to manage Hyper-V 2012.Hyper-V is definitely our preferred Hypervisor. With its simple configuration console, setting up a Virtual Server is very simple. Multiple Hyper-V servers are easier to manage when integrated into a domain network, when you have a standalone server (especially server core) it can be difficult to manage.

Hyper-V is a must have if you have a subscription with Microsoft’s MSDN program

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.

We have installed a domain controller in Hyper-V, also managing arbitrator for SimpliVity.  We are using it for HPE SimpliVity.           

We have a higher capacity server (specification wise) so there is no need to buy another additional hardware.       

Memory size is increased and reduced as per requirement. It's the same disk size we also use.                

It should be deployed with OS so there is no need to install OS separately, only select the OS and get it ready.                   

I've been using Hyper-V for two years. 

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

The corrupted volume is a problem.

Less than one year.

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.

We had deployed multiple Hyper-V clusters for various projects and even have the confidence to run it for highly critical production loads.

Hyper-V has become a real matured virtualization platform with Windows Server 2012 R2. The organization that I work for was having a virtualization environment on Windows Server 2008 R2. Since it was not optimally used due to the limitations with Hyper-V with Windows Server 2008 R2, we evaluated the possibility to get an environment on Windows Server 2012 R2. We had more than 30 racks with the majority of them running on physical machines. By the end of 2014, the number of server racks came down to 10 and we could confidently run majority of the workloads on Hyper-V. The organization has realized the benefits on smaller data center space, power, cooling, etc. apart from the benefit that the virtualization layer brings in. 

• Live migration
• P2V
• VM replica
• Snapshots
• VM export and import
• Dynamic memory, etc.

The advanced features, like Network Virtualization, have yet to be tested out, but I feel that they will be a game changer.

SCVMM needs to be more user-friendly. Without SCVMM, automating is not easy to use and we look forward to the upcoming versions of SCVMM becoming simpler and more admin friendly.

One to three years.

Just to be able to efficiently utilize our power hardware. Gone are the days of one pizza box for a two-core CPU. You've got dozens of cores in one box, and you can't use them all if you just run one thing on one server, so you've got to virtualize it.

The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization.

There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable. But that's going to depend on the bandwidth. You can have an adverse effect as well, if somebody is just using a real small data pipe. Then, they could choke you with Dropbox. They've got to calculate it out.

I didn't give it a 10 out of 10 because sometimes remotely managing it isn't as simple as it could be. Basically, it just involves having to log directly into a box rather than doing something via remote command.

And there's also still a little bit of a learning curve, and as I'm learning additional things with some of the maintenance stuff - then scripting that and automating it - then I won't have to deal with it anymore.

In a way, it's still easier, in my mind, in comparison to when you do have to dig in deep on a VMware box.

Not as of yet. But what's being done is completely unsupported by Dropbox. The way that they view it is just "a file is a file." That's it. So, you synchronize files that are the actual backups - and it's just a file. But using them for a backup solution, they don't support anything other than it being a client application for a user; not as a service or anything else.

Not really, except for when they push out enough data that it requires additional dependencies that they didn't know about. Broke it on a Linux server, but that was just one time.

It's the luck of the draw. It's been as low as a three and as high as an eight out of 10.

VMware - the cost. Because Hyper-V is free, and you get a lot of the solutions that you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars for with VMware. It's free under Microsoft. And they've really polished it in the past two years. It's pretty good.

It's very simple.

I was dropped into it, so I inherited a mostly completed environment, and then I finished it.

They had problems with the VMware running on their servers because they were using unsupported. It was before Dell released firmware for the controllers for the servers to stop complaining. Even though the drives were working fine, the controller was throwing a bunch of errors.

Plus, that version of VMware, at that time, didn't support TRIM, so then it had problems reclaiming space and stuff like that. Then it had to go over to Windows, which under Hyper-V supported TRIM. Now, VMware does support it, so it wouldn't be an issue, but it's already converted over. It's rock solid.

Don't knock Hyper-V until you actually try it.

I get a lot of people from the tech community, saying things like, "Hahaha, you're on Hyper-V?" And I reply, "Yeah. At first, I opposed it, but it's grown on me and I love it." I still run VMware at home, just because I already have it running on in my lab, but if I were to rebuild, I'd do it under Hyper-V. Why not?

You get more features for free.

You've got to actually really try it for a good six months to a year, and then it grows on you. It's like, "Wow! You can do all that?" Yeah. And more.

Hyper-V's gotten a lot better since 2012 and 2012 R2, and now the 2016 is light years again.

We are mainly using Hyper-V in the financial sector.

The ease of use of Hyper-V is the most valuable feature.

Hyper-V could improve the management tools.

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

All the newer versions of Hyper-V are stable.

The solution could improve scalability.

The support from Microsoft is very slow.

The initial implementation was difficult because there are not enough management tools. The time it took was approximately three days.

We installed the Hyper-V on bare-metal hardware, created the VMs, and attached the storage, et cetera.

We have four to five staff members for the implementation of Hyper-V. The maintenance includes server management, creating VMs, and backups.

My advice to others implementing this solution is there are no implementation management tools available, they will have to do it all themselves.

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.

On-premises