Hyper-V Reviews

Hyper-V is a virtualization layer. We use it for all of our applications.

The performance is very good.

Failure capabilities are insufficient for disaster recovery. Better disaster recovery is required.

The technical support is adequate but it could be better.

We have been using Hyper-V for 11 years.

We are working with the 2019 version. Version 2022 has been released, and we intend to update it next year.

Hyper-V is a stable product.

In our organization, this solution is used by more than 1,200 people, and that number will increase to more than 1,500 users next month.

It's a scalable solution.

In my experience, support is normal. If I were to rate them, I would give them an eight out of ten. 

When you contact technical support, you will speak with a level one representative, who has less knowledge than level two and level three representatives.

Previously, I was using VMware, but it was a bit costly compared to Hyper-V.

I also question why I should pay for the virtualization when I was getting it for free with Hyper-V. 

With a Data Center license, such as the Windows Data Center license, Hyper-V is essentially free. That is why I switched to Hyper-V; it met 90 percent of our requirements.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy to install.

It took me two to three days to complete the design and installation.

We only need one administrator to keep this solution running.

I completed the installation myself.

We purchase the license from Microsoft.

We renew the software assurance every three years.

Definitely, I would recommend this solution.

I would rate Hyper-V a nine out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization.

Hyper-V has improved our organization by enabling consolidation, high availability, disaster recovery, backups, and more. It makes it all simple.

I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center.

Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. Performance can also be better.

We used Hyper-V from 2008 to 2019.

Hyper-V is a stable solution.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. 

I haven't used Microsoft's technical support much.

We have used Citrix and VMware. I would say VMware is simpler for the deployment side of it. Hyper-V is also easy to deploy, but you need to set it up as a role.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. The deployment time depends on the hardware. It can take anywhere from 20 minutes to half an hour. One engineer can implement, manage, and maintain this solution.

It's free with a Windows license, but you can say that there is an ROI in separating workloads.

Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.

I would recommend Hyper-V for small-scale users with one or two VMs. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V a seven.

We're using the mail correspondence and other applications which are running using Hyper-V.

The solution offers many useful features. 

It's a very manageable product. 

The deployment was pretty quick. It's also easy to set up. 

It is a stable and scalable solution. 

They could work on lowering the cost of the solution. 

I started using the solution in 2022. I've used it for six to eight months so far.

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

The product scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. 

There are maybe 400 or more users on the solution, and there are between 300 and 500 users in our environment.

It can actually connect to PC users, and 200 PCs are connected now.

We have used technical support in the past without issue. 

The initial setup is not overly complex, and the deployment time is rather fast. It offers a straightforward implementation. We had some requirements for configuration setups, et cetera, and were able to implement them as required. We had one project set up and then set up another. 

We did not use an integrator or consultant when we set up the solution. We could handle the process ourselves. 

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the solution. It is a bit expensive and could be cheaper. 

We do plan to look into other options in the future. 

The solution is easily manageable, and the setup process isn't too bad. Therefore, I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate the product ten out of ten overall. 

We were using Hyper-V as a part of our ERP system, proxy servers, and some very minimalistic workstations.

If I want to create a cluster of around five to 10 physical servers Hyper-V does not get integrated with any kind of virtual sense, such as vSense.

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

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Hyper-V a ten out of ten.

I am not able to scale the solution the way I want and that is why we are migrating to VMware.

I rate the scalability of Hyper-V a four out of ten.

I have used the support one or two times for post-implementations and they're very helpful and skilled.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is easy compared to vScaler. It did not take more than two or three days for setting up the vendor cluster.

Our in-house team did the deployment of the solution.

We have received a return on investment. However, we had a better result with vScaler.

We evaluated Citrix solutions and Open Linux with our integration team. We choose Hyper-V because we have Microsoft Windows systems.

I recommend this solution to others if they have a cluster of around four or less than 10 servers. However, if they want to have higher-level clusters and integrated service solutions, they will have to look at other options.

I rateHyper-V a seven out of ten.

I use Hyper-V for virtualization.

I've been using Hyper-V since 2012.

We've had many issues with Hyper-V's stability, including resource crunches and memory leakage.

It's straightforward to scale Hyper-V, but the automation isn't great. Hyper-V doesn't understand 80%/20%, so you need another technical resource to work on the coding voice, and we had to deploy a script for that.

Hyper-V's technical support is good - they're responsive and sort cases based on criticality and category, so they get dealt with quickly and by the correct team. The only thing I didn't like was that we had to send them log collections from our data center to review.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward as the deployment was done through the SCVM Manager. This allows the user to create virtual machines without any need for IT support. Deployment is nothing but installing the operating system on one physical server, so it takes between an hour and a half and two hours, and altogether, the project takes a month to a month and a half.

Hyper-V is included in the Microsoft Azure license for no extra cost. However, they charge for technical support calls on an hourly basis.

I would recommend Hyper-V to others because it has good capacity and requires little maintenance. I would give Hyper-V a rating of eight out of ten.

In our environment, we have a special custom configuration for the Hyper-V switches we use. We have a full-scope VM in our environment and especially for certain Cisco configurations, such as the spam folder in the Hyper-V. It is really difficult to configure from scratch. In this scenario, the agent is really helpful for us, for the restoration. The community edition provides a free, low-cost package solution.

The solution could improve by having virtual restore.

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

The solution is highly stable.

We have ten hosts that use the solution.

The support is very good.

I have previously used VMware and Citrix Xen.

The installation is simple, and it took us approximately 45 minutes.

I did the implementation myself. There is only one senior engineer required for support of Hyper-V.

The licensing costs depend on the environment you have. If you have an environment of less than 10 or 30 VMs, It's nice to have a Hyper-V, but if you have more than 100 or 200, I would recommend using VCenter, VMware virtualization, especially for an on-premise solution.

VMware virtualization is our main solution, but we use Hyper-V because of the licensing and the cost-effective solution, and on the remote offices we only have fewer than 10 servers.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a nine out of ten.

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 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.