Hyper-V Reviews

It is an affordable platform than VMware for hosting older versions of Microsoft Windows like Windows XP and Windows NT.

They should include a few more hardware components for integration with servers. It would work great for the Hyper-V environment. Additionally, they should consider cloud virtualization features. 

We have been using Hyper-V since 2016.

The product worked well for hosting a few Microsoft solutions.

It is a scalable platform. We have 100 users for it.

We have used VMware before.

The initial setup process is easy. It takes about two or three hours to complete. We have to follow the installation documentation. It requires one person to maintain.

The product's price is low. We have to pay a one-time cost.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. I advise others to go for it if they have an interactive environment.

I use the solution for Jira visualization and Jira workload.

The solution is very user-friendly. Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, it is really easy to use and doesn't cost us much.

The feature of native integration with Azure is good.

The solution should improve its native integration with other public cloud solutions.

I have been using the solution for the past 10-15 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. However, we do not have a big cluster. At the moment, we do not have any plans to increase the usage of the solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We did not have any issues at all.

We get ROI on the product.

Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.

If someone plans to implement Hyper-V, they should seek an agreement with Microsoft to get a better value for the product. I rate the solution an eight 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.

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.

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.

We are mainly using Hyper-V for VMs. The primary business is biscuit manufacturing, so we have 70 different types of sales-related software, some Windows-based SAP, and VMs running on Hyper-V. All VMs are running on Hyper-V. So indirectly, everyone is using it because it's our primary production system. We have maybe 650 employees at the moment. About 200 of these are computer users who are connected with Hyper-V in one way or another. Either they are using some of its services in a virtual machine or they're the IT guys directly involved with it. The non-IT people are using finance software or SAP-related software that they access through the web. Some servers are standalone Hyper-V, and there are two clusters of Hyper-V.

We have a cluster with storage space direct in Hyper-V, and we have virtual networking as well, so we are using all of the features except for Credential Guard, Host Guardian, and a few other things. We are not using these types of Hyper-V solutions because we don't need them.

Microsoft has developed a Windows Admin Center to manage its servers. I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation. Microsoft could also do more modules related to servers and add administration features for that. I like Admin Center, and I want to deploy it in my organization, but the role-based access control feature is limited as we have to give a complete administrative right to other users as well. So these are some limitations that are blocking us. The Admin Center needs to provide a consolidated management interface that is easy to configure and provide a role-based access control so that we can give certain rights to our other users enabling them to administer the servers.

I joined the organization where I currently work in the last year, and the organization has deployed Hyper-V since 2012. So, in this organization, I have used Hyper-V for one year. But before that, I was a Microsoft instructor teaching about Microsoft products, including Hyper-V.

I would say that Hyper-V is pretty stable. But when it updates, we must restart all Windows systems. So if Microsoft can fix this thing so that the packages install restarting, then everything would be heaven for us. This means some downtime on our business side.

Yeah. It's easy to scale cluster features like Microsoft or Hyper-V. We can add as many servers—a maximum of 64—so it can handle a lot and it's easy for us to add to it. But there is one requirement, which is that the servers have to be identical in hardware specs. So that is one of the limitations.

Technical support was good. We didn't require Hyper-V technical support, but we have some issues with our Exchange online and email. So, for that, we opened a ticket with Microsoft, and they provided us with good and excellent support.

The initial setup is simple. There's not much to do. We input one command or just one or two clicks on the UI. Initial setup in the Windows environment for any software is not that difficult. Installing Hyper-V takes five to 10 minutes, including two server restarts. And then, we have to make the VMs, so that depends on how many we are making. That's the other factor, not the initial deployment. Migrating VMs is easy. It does not require any specific configurations because it runs on most hardware. And Windows Update comes with automatic updates. We use the WSUS server to update our servers to have controlled update patches. We keep our servers up to date, so it's easier, and it does not require any specialized hardware.

I rate it eight out of 10. I recommend Hyper-V because it's easy to install and supports most hardware. It runs on almost everything. I'm also recommending my company go for Azure Stack because it also uses Hyper-V, so we will not have to convert our VMs. But the top management in our organization is considering Nutanix or VMware solutions. I don't know why they're doing this. 

The product is easy to manage. It improves our VM management. 

The solution should be compatible with different systems. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Hyper-V's scalability is good. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has two users. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward. We have five resources to manage its deployment and maintenance. 

Hyper-V's deployment is in-house. 

The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual. 

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.