Hyper-V Reviews

I value the simplicity of configuration because it has worked as expected for my client.

The weakness of Hyper-V is in its interaction with iSCSI protocols. I had a bad experience with iSCSI, but that is storage not from Microsoft and is a very particular storage option that I chose long ago.

I would like to see a more granular configuration of the iSCSI protocol without going to the registry to configure it. Instead, there should be a user interface to quickly configure the parameters of iSCSI communication.

I've used Hyper-V since 2012.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable with respect to the client. But maybe, in absolute terms, it might not be scalable at all.

I think their support is quite good. I had the opportunity to open a few tickets with them and was satisfied.

Positive

The initial setup for Hyper-V was straightforward. It took about one week to set up the infrastructure from zero. The implementation strategy was to virtualize a number of roles in the virtual machine but also consolidate all the roles in case of migration. The virtual machine is already clear with all the roles, and I just have to upgrade the single role on the virtual machine.

Hyper-V's price is a good point because it's within the overall license cost. I don't have to pay extra for Hyper-V, And that's a good point. Hyper-V's price is essentially zero because it's a feature of the operating system that I can enable and disable at will.

Whether I would recommend this product for enterprise companies is a good question. The simplicity is a point in favor of the solution. But the performance could be better to compete with solutions like VMware. I'm working with technical partners now, and I tend to accept what they suggest to me and forward it to the final customer. I'm a professional freelance consultant, so I don't have much power for the final customer. But if it was up to me, I would keep Hyper-V.

Hyper-V's advantages over its competitors are its simplicity and fast implementation. I rate Hyper-V a nine out of ten.

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. 

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.

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.

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization. We initially set up 54 servers and three SANs.

The virtual SAN feature is helpful. 

Some of the interfaces need improvements, like the virtual switch or virtual VLAN interfaces.

I have been using Hyper-V for almost six months.

Hyper-V is stable.

Hyper-V is scalable.

Microsoft support is good. 

Hyper-V is a simple product overall, but it's complex to set up. If you want to configure a VLAN, you have to configure all the prerequisites. About 15 people are working with this solution, but you need only three for maintenance. 

We had help from a reseller. 

We pay an annual license for Hyper-V, and it's on the expensive side. 

I rate Hyper-V eight out of 10. The first time you deploy Hyper-V, you need to do a test scenario before moving into a production environment. 

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 work in an environment where we are required to use them, as well as for DevOps and a few other things like Helios and similar things. As a result, I use it for DevOps testing, infrastructure, and implementation within the product areas of my clients.

The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features.

The WSUS could stand to improve a little bit. It is also foggy at times. Again, I use a wide variety of products and services, but going through each one would take much longer, but WSUS is an awesome Microsoft product that could use some improvement in terms of reporting tools and such. Even the additions and servers work is more difficult. Even the manual add is difficult, and reporting occasionally breaks into the endpoints, but that could be one to five servers when I'm checking a hundred to 200 servers.  I suppose it's insignificant, but when it causes problems with those minor details, it can be difficult. But, aside from that, it works well.

It does what it needs to do and is adequate for the time being. It completes tasks such as replication cycles and other similar tasks. That's probably the only way it can be. In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication. If it could have been a simpler process, or if there was another way they could have done it, it would be beneficial. For example, if I'm doing site-to-site replication, I would normally have to do that in terms of bandwidth; Cisco has some, and they have some different tools that would enable the packages to be smaller and faster, but maybe just Microsoft takes a while to do the site-to-site replication.

I have been working with Hyper-V for approximately 15 years.

This solution is used by 10 administrators, and the product itself has 500,000, or 600,000 users.

We have pretty good in-house expertise, we haven't needed to reach out for actual technical support.

I test products ranging from VOIP to Microsoft to virtualization, VMware, and Hyper-V. I am always testing products and then deciding whether to put them into production for use or scale operations.

In the last year, I would say it has been a voice over IP products as well as a couple of SBC products. This is also true for VM testing and Microsoft products, such as Hyper-V, and a couple of software for voice over IP integration.

Microsoft, as well as perhaps eight or nine others.

I also work with DevOps.

We haven't used the VMware solution to its full potential, and the reason for that is that the software that is currently used on that platform lacks certain features that would allow us to use VMware to its full potential, but it resides on the VMware platform.

In order to obtain the products, we must go through a third-party vendor. We can't go directly to Microsoft.

I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

We have a project for disaster recovery. We are using an arc server. We have to use the basic server, each biometric server, in the virtualization environment. In the virtualization environment, we are using Hyper-V. In the software, in the arc server, they get the image from the metal and put it into the Hyper-V environment.

It is familiar. It's very comfortable with Windows. I can configure it easily, with no hassle. That's the main thing I have seen is that the licensing, when we talk about the standard version, they're giving the rule license for free. That is a good benefit for assembly companies.

We can use the solution for free when you want to try it out. 

The implementation process is simple. 

We haven't had any difficulties with the solution. We're happy with it. 

Sometimes there's a bit of slowness in the VMs. The performance could be a bit better.

We'd like to see a bit more done with the migration capabilities. 

The solution needs to offer better local or regional support. 

I've dealt with the solution for five or six years. 

We'd like to see the performance improve a bit. 

In our experience, for the most part, the solution is reliable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches. 

There are five people directly using the solution. I'm not personally using the solution on a daily basis. 

It is scalable and easy to expand. 

Technical support has been a bit slow for us. Sometimes, due to regional time changes, there are issues. Therefore, when I raise a ticket for an issue, it takes time. We are in Sri Lanka, and there is no regional support here. We'd like them to have more regional support. 

Neutral

We've also worked with VMware and Sangfor. The main difference is that the Hypervisor should be not at the OS level. It should be at the hardware level. That's the main thing Microsoft has to improve.

In VMware, we saw they have VMotion. In the Hypervisor, that feature is not there. We didn't manage to transfer some images, We would have to do it manually. It should be automatic. That would be added to Hyper-V.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

The deployment was quick. It took 15 to 20 minutes. 

I'd rate the solution five out of five in terms of ease of setup. 

We don't really need any maintenance to be done on the product. Once a month, Microsoft may provide us patches, and we tend to implement those, However, that's it. We put those in place to protect us from security issues. 

We did have help in the sense that we searched the internet for assistance and answers to our questions. We did not engage with a vendor. We handled the setup ourselves. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing of the solution. The cost may be a bit higher than VMware, however.

We are service integrators.

We are working with the latest update.

I'd advise that a potential new user should look into their requirements. It's difficult to change a product once it has been issued. You need to know what you want. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.