Hyper-V Reviews

The solution is used as a hosting database. 

The solution is highly scalable. 

The pricing and technical support can be improved. 

I have been using Hyper-V for a few months. 

The stability of the solution is satisfactory. 

The solution is highly scalable. Fifty eight users are using the solution. 

The technical support is moderate. 

Neutral

Hyper-V's initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes a day. 

The solution can be implemented in-house. 

Hyper-V is expensive. 

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

Mainly, I use Hyper-V to analyze whether it fits the customer's needs as a solutions architect. First, we determine whether the customer is a Microsoft user. Then, we consider pricing and compare it against the features of VMware or AHV to determine which solution would be most helpful.

In terms of how the solution has helped the organization, I would say that cost-wise, it is a cheaper solution than VMware.

The virtualization aspect of the solution functions similar to VMware is one of its most valuable features. Even though it costs significantly less than VMware, it has enough features to compete with it, especially in terms of virtualizing VMs, data stores, NICs, and VNX.

Many vendors, such as Cisco and HPE, are discontinuing support for Hyper-V as they believe it does not have a significant market share. This poses a significant problem for our Hyper-V customers since several major vendors will no longer provide support for it.

Hyper-V doesn't need additional features. They just needed to be well-defined. So, people aren't using it as much as before, and so they need to market it better. Everybody knows VMware, but not a lot of people know Hyper-V.

I have been using Hyper-V for at least five years. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using.

It is a stable product.

Even though Hyper-V is not as scalable as VMware, it can be considered scalable in general.

We don't have any plans in our organization to increase the usage of the solution. On the contrary, I see a decrease in its usage. Nowadays, we work with customers who are going to migrate to VMware from Hyper-V, even though we don't want them to do that. But there is nothing else we can do to stop them from our end. This downfall of Hyper-V is related directly to the fact that other vendors are not supporting Hyper-V anymore.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten since it is embedded with Microsoft support. So, their support is okay.

Positive

The initial setup process for Hyper-V was not that hard. If one knows about Microsoft and virtualization, it's not a hard product to manage or install.

I have experienced an ROI using the solution, especially when considering SLED customers.

It is one of the cheapest products in the market. So, even though Nutanix gives away AHV, one still has to pay for Nutanix home.

My suggestion to those planning to use the solution is that they use it in a smaller or simpler environment, and it'll easily do the job for them while being cost-effective at the same time. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

In our company, we develop software internally, and many of our development systems are virtual systems hosted on Hyper-V. Additionally, we have virtual machines for office automation systems such as Exchange Server and Rack Server, which are also hosted on Hyper-V.

The clear cost structure of the solution is its best feature.

In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower. This applies not only to the system performance but also to the virtual machine performance. Particularly, the disk I/O is very poor, in my opinion. Additionally, it is lacking in many features that are offered by tools such as VMware.

I currently have all the features I need. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything I need to add to my wishlist. Moreover, the company I work for is not that big. I am the sole IT personnel in a company with only 30 employees.

I have been using Hyper-V since 2010. I am currently using Hyper-V 2019. Basically, I am a user and a customer of the solution.

Hyper-V is a stable product.

Scaling the solution is not a problem, as increasing the capacity is as simple as adding to the base cost, which results in a doubling of capacity. Personally, I use Hyper-V software, while the rest of the company uses virtual machines.

Apart from Hyper-V, I mainly use Microsoft Exchange as an administrative user to create system accounts and perform related tasks. However, for more technical aspects, I rely on my partner.

For me, the setup of Hyper-V was an easy process, which took only one hour from start to finish. The installation involved simply adding a roll. So for me, the setup of Hyper-V was not particularly a special task.

Cost-wise, what one gets is directly proportional to the price paid. If the need for capacity doubles, then the price also doubles. We get all the licenses for the solution through a third party.

Rather than going with any other solution, I choose to go with Hyper-V because of its very clear cost structure.

I'm not sure if I'm the best person to suggest to you whether to use Hyper-V or not since I think it really depends on your situation. However, let's say we've known each other for ten years as colleagues and talking as friends, if cost is your main concern, then I would definitely recommend using Hyper-V. But if you're looking for high performance, I would recommend against it because it's not as good as other options like VMware.

Considering the performance-related issues of the solution, I rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for test virtualization.

We used this product for our virtualization environment.

One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use.

We would like it to migrate virtual machines without interruptions.

I have been using this solution for five years.

The solution needs to improve the stability.

Hyper-V can scale well.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster.

Neutral

The installation was not easy and it took approximately two days.

We needed to have a consultant for the implementation. We have two administrators and one manager that does the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

I primarily use the solution for consolidation, and I try to do replication using the last version. However, I need some time to do this configuration.

The solution is free.

The performance is okay.

For some customers that have a smaller implementation and not so much data, it's a good solution.

There are some products that you can mount over Hyper-V that provide the features that, in today's Hyper-V, are not present.

I'd like the performance to be better. 

If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools to coexist with many, many features that are not present in the base Hyper-V.

The interface needs more options and more refinement. 

I've used the solution since the first version. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. However, the performance could be better.

If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools and more people. You need to work more. That said, it's cheaper. Some enterprises, some companies, find it better since they may have no more money. Bigger enterprises have the money to spend and have the tools or buy the tools needed, or use they may use VMware implementations along with Hyper-V.

The support is good, however, it is expensive. 

There's a lot of documentation and experience in the market. With some time and experience, you can manage alone. That said, for some problems, support is required. And the support is expensive.

I use VMware and Hyper-V.

If the customer has an implementation with so many virtual machines and multiple networks, maybe VMware is a better solution for the client.

The solution can be complex to set up. If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools. 

On average, two engineers can deploy the solution. 

I haven't taken the time to calculate ROI actively. That said, it might be there as it is a cheaper option. 

You do need to pay for support, which is expensive. The solution by itself is free. 

I'm a reseller.

If the client is new to the solution, they likely will find the product to be complex. You need one or two engineers to handle the implementation, which is easy to manage. With some training, a company can handle it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

What I understand from our people is that it's certainly better now than it was a few years ago. They keep improving. 

The pricing is pretty good. 

My understanding is it's easy to set up.

The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey.

We could probably live without it since we are a relatively small operation, however, vCenter is very convenient. vMotion and so forth are nice to be able to do. However, in order to be able to do the counterpart to that in the HyperVision world, suddenly the cost differential diminishes dramatically. We're not considering a change anytime soon, yet things have changed even from the last two years ago when we last looked at this.

I don't have many insights on stability. I have read a few things, however, it's not really my space. 

Across all of our clients, we probably have a few hundred in use, however, the number of instances of our application that are operating on those virtual servers, I don't know. 

The only data point I have there in relation to the initial setup is a conversation with a guy who spends 90% of his time supporting VMware organizations. He's had some Hyper-V experience. He says, "It's straightforward and I see it growing." That's somebody who's in that who space telling me that just the last week.

The pricing is a function of how many cores you have or how many processors you have. Since we're a Microsoft partner and use tools to create and maintain the software that we sell subscriptions to, we get very attractive pricing. If whatever their counterpart to the vCenter licensing weren't an issue, it would probably be 20% of what we pay for VMware.

When you add the vCenter, counterpart back in, however, it comes to be probably 80%-85% of what you actually need. The last 10% or 15% is where it gets pricey. That's a lot to cover for us to do unless there's some other serious functional advantage - and our guys haven't seen that yet.

I'd rate Hyper-V a five out of ten. I'm not a user of it, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to rate it, however, the part of it that I was most interested in was the pricing notion. Microsoft does all sorts of interesting pricing things. I'm sure they have a good reason for doing it, however, to say, "We'll give you 80% of what you need for almost nothing and if you want the last 20%, you got to give us your left kidney" seems a little unusual.

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.

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.