Hyper-V Reviews

We are partners with Microsoft. We install 50% of VMware and 50% the solution from Hyper-V, depending on the customer's request.

Mid-level businesses who want to create their own data center, and they are using other Microsoft systems. 

Hyper-V and VMware are similar. However, Hyper-V is less expensive. Hyper-V also has a tight integration with Azure. This means that you can have some VM on Azure and some VM on premises, and you can move a VM from Microsoft data center to a local data center on the customer's side.

Hyper-V could benefit with improvements to their management interface. Also, there are some features that are better on other solutions. For example, VMware is easier to create 3D acceleration than on Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is quite stable. I do not have any issues.

The biggest cluster we have in the field is a node cluster.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware. You can deploy the solution in a matter of hours.

Our customers consider other options, however for mid-level businesses who want to create their own data center, Hyper-V is easier and less expensive than using both VMware and Microsoft Windows server for VMware for Veeam.

VMware has some features that are better. It is easier to create 3D acceleration, however the licensing model is not good.

I would rate Hyper-V an 8 out of 10.

We are an IT service company. We understand the technology and we provide Microsoft solutions, Linux, and Cisco solutions. We have a 360-degree relationship with Microsoft, Cisco, and two other companies. We are a premium partner with Microsoft. We use Hyper-V for virtualization and the consolidation of infrastructures. It is a cost-saving solution. We currently use 25% physical, and 75% virtual resources via Hyper-V, i.e. a ratio of 2.5 to 7.5. So we are using the virtual aspect to a greater extent.

It has provided a good cost-saving from the management perspective. It's easy to use, and understand. It's definitively great working on Microsoft Hyper-V. It was a great opportunity to really contribute while cutting down our company costs.

I would say that it's easy to use, and cost-effective. These are the two major factors why we like Hyper-V. I would say VMware ESX is the best, but Microsoft Hyper-V also is very good. It's easy to use and it's cost-effective compared to ESX.

Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement. There could also be improvements in virtualization, performance, management, monitoring, reporting, recommendations, integration, customization, and technical support. Performance and up-scaling are the most important areas in need of improvement.

We have experience with Hyper-V for about 10 to 12 years. I'm an IT manager who manages multiples things, like virtualization and email.

It's about 90% stable.

We would give it a scalability rating of 4 out of 5, compared to VMware ESX which in terms of scalability is excellent.

The support is not excellent, but it is very good. It could be improved.

The initial setup is straightforward, it's easy. I did it on my own without assistance.

We are a team of five to six members, who work on this product in-house. 

Microsoft Hyper-V is not expensive and is easy to set up.

We considered App-V for publishing, but it is a costly solution and is not for virtualization technology but as an end-user solution. It is for application publishing. We have also considered VMware ESX. The main difference between VMware virtualization and Microsoft Hyper-V is the VR capabilities of VMware ESX are better, but both are good.

We are very satisfied with Hyper-V. I would rate Hyper-V as 7 out of 10.

We use Hyper-V to test multiple virtual machines and servers to be deployed.

The product performs a bit slowly compared to VMware.

At the end of the day, Hyper-V is a Microsoft product. Thus, it provides better stability and is convenient to use.

I prefer using VMware more than Hyper-V. It is a convenient-to-use tool. I encounter issues such as mouse cursor problems, dependencies, lagging, freezing, and unresponsiveness using Hyper-V. These challenges led to a decision to migrate to VMware for virtualization.

The initial setup is easy.

It is an inbuilt tool included in Windows Server. There is no cost associated with it if customers are already using Microsoft products.

I rate Hyper-V a five out of ten.

Currently, we use the Windows Server 2022 Hyper-V server.

We started the virtualization and provide two virtualized environments or operating system environments in the Windows Server itself. We run in the virtualized environment under one single Windows Server license. We started our virtualization from one site on Hyper-V.

Most of the workload we usually have is in the Windows Server. We also leverage the Windows Server virtualization feature, allowing us to use the hardware efficiently and get multiple Windows installs based on the license. We use both Windows Server Standard and Data Center Editions. In the Data Center Edition, we can run unlimited virtual machines based on our hardware capabilities.

The generation feature is good. Hyper-V allows us to define generation one and generation two Hyper-Vs with some legacy boot features. I appreciate the easy  generation of virtual machines.

It is straightforward to set up the solution. 

It's a stable product.

We can scale the solution.

It's pretty much issue free, so we haven't needed technical support.

They need to make some improvements to compare to VMware on Nutanix. There should be a center manual console to manage all the Hyper-V servers and cross-host V-motion. There should be clustering, and the virtual data center should be created with that in mind. There should be similar offerings between different services available within the industry.

I'd like there to be a central management console and a central configuration tool to manage and configure multiple Hyper-V services. 

We'd like a template feature to help deploy VMs quickly.

I've been using the solution for more than seven years. 

It works well. It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable only in terms of licensing.

If you have the Data Center Edition license, you can scale up.

We use this product for 50 or more servers.

We do not have plans to increase usage at this time. 

We do not need to take general support from Microsoft. It's not a very complex product. We can troubleshoot ourselves.

I've yet to use a different solution. 

The solution is simple to set up. It's not overly complex. 

One Windows server administrator can handle the deployment and maintenance.

We handled the deployment ourselves, in-house. We did not need any outside assistance. 

Initially, we started our journey with the Alpha virtualization with Hyper-V. We can leverage multiple virtual machines, and we can create them with the help of Hyper-V. On Windows Server, with Hyper-V, we can get two virtual machines of Windows Server. However, we can also create other virtual machines like Linux. We can create a very dense environment that is very valuable to our organization.

The cost of the product actually comes under the Windows server purchase. A Windows Server standard license comes with Hyper-V. A minimum of eight core license units need to be purchased. The costs depend completely on your CPU and core central server.

Before committing to one solution, a new user needs to consider what they might do if, at some point, they need to migrate. Users need to consider sizing also before deployment, as well as disk format types. They should use Thin provisioning before the deployment of a VM, and not use Thick provisioning.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The solution is server virtualization software. We're using it to create virtual servers on our hosts and assign roles to each server separately. That's basically what a virtualization server does.

The solution's ease of use is the most important feature. It is very easy to use and implement. 

It has very good fail-over features. You can have servers running in a fail-over cluster and whenever one server fails, you can migrate the workloads to the second one. This is also a very important feature to avoid service downtime or to minimize it at the very least.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward for the most part.

Microsoft has documentation that is easy to find, helpful, and readily available. 

The stability is pretty good.

The solution can scale.

The solution has already improved for us. We have the older version, which was released in 2012, or the end of 2012. There were two releases after that, however, we haven't updated due to the fact that the upgrade costs are too high, and therefore we've migrated to Hyperflex.

The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory.

If you have other virtualization solutions you have about 95% or 99% of the resources of the host available to you to assign to a virtual server. However, with Windows, that number is less than 95% and is more like 90%. There is a margin reserved for the server itself. That's a downside.

The solution needs to improve integration with hyper-converged infrastructure solutions, or SGI solutions. We were going with SGI for our next virtualization solution. I read reviews about the Hyper-V causing issues with SGI. When we decided to go with SGI, I decided against going with Hyper-V due to the integration issues that it had. 

I've been using the solution for about five years or so at this point, give or take. It's been a while. I'm currently using it now as well.

The solution is basically stable. There are not many faults happening in the four or so years that we had it running. Whatever happened was basically either due to the active directory or due to environments like the server itself that had power loss one time. It shut down and we needed to restart it. However, basically, that's an environment issue, not an issue inherent to Hyper-V itself. Otherwise, Hyper-V runs smoothly.

There is a small overhead of resources reserved for the server itself. Other virtualization solutions have less overhead than that. However, due to the fact that Hyper-V is running on Windows Server, there is a margin of overhead reserved for the server itself. 

For the most part, however, it's reliable. 

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so with relative ease.

Due to the fact that it's a virtualization solution, our IT team of three is managing it. However, as an ISP, we host some very important client services as well on the same solution. That means the number of users can go up to 100,000. From a management perspective, the management is just the three of us in the IT department.

We do not plan to increase usage at this time. Currently, with our version, we're planning to phase it out in our company within the next few years. That's mostly due to the fact that upgrade costs are too high and the solution is already an older generation, and we have decided to buy a fully new solution on new hardware. It will be Hyperflex.

We haven't contacted Microsoft for support. We've worked with several Microsoft partners for support and they were responsive. However, we haven't reached out to Microsoft directly.

There is good documentation from Microsoft and this can help with troubleshooting as well. 

Windows support in general is available online. It's as easy as Googling the issue that you have and you'll readily find solutions. It's not complicated. That part is positive. Other solutions are either too complicated or not very popular. In other products, if you need any support, you must either contact the vendor themselves or look for professional support.

The solution is straightforward if you know how to use Windows Server. Hyper-V is basically a role on Windows Server. Therefore, you can use Windows Server for many roles on networking, on the active directory. Hyper-V is just one of them. You can just install the role and enable it and that's it. Basically, it's up.

The deployment is quite quick. It's a part of the server.

Initial setup process:

after installing the Windows Server, you select 'Add Roles & Features' from the 'Manage' Menu on the 'Server Manager' Window.

then you step through the wizard, selecting the 'Hyper-V' Role along with any features Windows requires for that role. a restart is recommended even if it's not required.

to implement a solution with redundancy, you can install the 'Failover Cluster' Role with the Hyper-V Role on 2 (or more) identical servers, and create a Failover Cluster out of the servers where VMs would "Fail Over" between servers.

then you need to set up a virtual switch to connect the VMs. you should set up at least 1 external switch to enable internet access and remote reachability for the VMs.

then you can create VMs and run them.

The costs in regards to upgrading the solution are quite high and it deters customers from changing versions.

The old solution in 2012 was charging at a cost per server and the pricing was good at the time. In 2016, Microsoft upgraded the licensing, or changed the licensing scheme to per CPU within the server. Basically, if we wanted to upgrade to 2016, we would have had to pay double again for the same software. Therefore, we decided to go with another solution.

The solution offers perpetual licensing.

We are just a customer or end-user.

We're using the version that is on Windows Server 2012 R2.

I'd advise other companies that this solution is to be considered, compared to other solutions. That said, there are solutions that are better and it depends on the scenario. It depends on the scenario, the scale you have, the implementation, et cetera. Companies should compare it to other solutions. Maybe the cost is high and performance isn't as good for them. I would suggest companies go with the VMware solution. That said, again, it depends on the scenario. In some scenarios, where a company is heavily dependent on Microsoft and Windows, it would be a better solution for them.

If most of your workloads are Windows Server, then buying a server host would give you free licensing for those workloads. The licensing would be included. Otherwise, if you buy another solution then you have to pay separately for each Windows license. The cost would be again, very high. For us, I can say maybe 70% or 80% of our workloads are Linux and other OS's, not Windows. It wouldn't make sense for us to go with Hyper-V. The cost would be too high. If you are implementing heavily into Windows Server, go for Hyper-V. If you have a different application or different type of application, then you'd be better off going with another solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I use the Hyper-V for migration for the machines. We move our systems to Hyper-V and then from physical to virtual. I currently run on the physical server. I'm migrating this server from the physical to the Hyper-V virtual machine.

The solution has an easy setup.

The pricing is pretty good.

There are usability issues with Hyper-V's manager. VMware has a much better system, but it's a much more expensive solution.

The interface is not uniform at all, which makes the manager difficult to use. It's not very convenient and isn't smartly designed. They need to reimagine it to make it more effective.

There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager.

It might be helpful if Microsoft could recommend the use of STV. Then, at least you can use Nano products to manage the Hyper-V server. Currently, I don't use STV. I'm not too familiar with this product. It would be helpful if Microsoft could provide some guidance as to its usage and the options available and why users might opt for them so that we have a better understanding of what we can do and how we can use the services on offer effectively.

I've been using the solution for five to six years now.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't crash. There aren't bugs and glitches that affect its functionality. It's a reliable product.

There's a team of us working with the solution. We have about five or six people who work with it regularly. We use it weekly.

The solution is very scalable. You just need to use the default function and it can build on the high reliability fro there. If a company needs to expand the solution, they can do so quite easily.

Microsoft's technical support is very good. Their team is very responsive and kind. We're more than satisfied with the level of service they provide. They're excellent.

I'm also familiar with VMware, however, I find it to be much more expensive than Hyper-V, even though I believe their interface is far better.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's easy. It's not complex at all.

Deployment doesn't take long at all. You just need to download the Hyper-V system. In some cases, you may need to install Windows onto the server. I can get it up and running and start using it almost immediately. It's that simple.

You only need one person to handle maintenance.

I can install and deploy the Hyper-V and the virtual machine by myself. I'm a systems administrator. I don't need the help of consultants or systems integrators. I have enough knowledge to manage everything on my own.

The solution is not as expensive as other options, for example, specifically VMware.

We're just Microsoft customers. We aren't partners and don't have a special relationship with the company and we don't sell Microsoft products. I focus on server virtualization. I work with both VMware and Hyper-V.

We're working with the 2019 and 2017 versions on Windows.

I'd recommend the solution. It's very good. I'd rate it eight out of ten overall.

This solution is mostly being used to deliver flexibility, high availability, and redundancy to accommodate production demand on an as-needed basis.

The main driver is consolidation, which is then complemented with the above-mentioned items. Hyper-V is a cost-effective platform that helped many companies I've been involved with to reduce data center administration and licensing costs drastically.

Once the platform is in place, it helps to control resources more accurately and on a consumption basis. By using the VMM (Virtual Machine Manager) you have full control of the fabric, workloads, templates and many more resources. Running Hyper-V Core also increases security and reduces update time-frames, which also helped us to increase our uptime and overall service delivery expectations. 

Hyper-V improved the infrastructure drastically, not only from a performance perspective but from a control/administration view as well. This directly affects the products and services offered on the platform. Our customers can increase or decrease resources on their workloads at any given time, which means we give them more control. That positively affects costs, reducing them for the customers. 

In most recent times, the live migration that is available for non-clustered environments was a massive benefit. Microsoft Storage Spaces can be used as an iSCSI provider for Hyper-V, which can help for a cost-effective cluster. Dynamic resource allocation is a great benefit that helps service providers to reduce costs and increase host density. 

I believe further improvement can be made on the cluster manager side, not specifically Hyper-V related. There are some storage problems which do occur in high load systems, especially SQL workloads. These do not necessarily affect uptime, but it can evolve into a larger problem if not attended to. Otherwise, the product is fantastic.

It is very stable. There are some minor problems, as there is with all software applications, but they are not problems that affect the platform in such a way that your customers are affected. If managed properly according to standards and Microsoft's recommendations, it works. It stays online and is very reliable.

Hyper-V is easily scalable. Adding additional hosts, storage or event sharing workloads between clusters (Not sharing the same cluster nodes) is made possible with the recent versions of Windows Server.

I have used Hyper-V since it was launched and upgrading to the newer versions is purely a matter of staying up to date with the latest features to help our customers benefit.

Do not immediately think of massive SANs and expensive servers. Instead, start small then evaluate and test properly to understand how workloads are treated. Microsoft, with Server 2019, gives you a massive number of tools to do this cost-effectively. 

We did evaluate other options before choosing this solution. VMware has always been a good platform but in terms of costs, it is very expensive. The other 'freeware' options are also great but did not tick our boxes in terms of features and contractual agreements.

We use Hyper-V for virtualization. 

Hyper-V helps to make a replica server between two machines. It is very easy to learn. 

Hyper-V needs to improve its support. 

I have been using the product for four years. 

My company has three users for Hyper-V. 

Hyper-V's deployment is easy. 

The tool's pricing is cheap. 

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.