Hyper-V Reviews

We basically use it to virtualize a service for email on-premise. We also use it to virtualize the apps, but it is mainly for virtualizing servers, such as SQL Server, Exchange Server, SharePoint, and CRM.

It has cut down the management role on the actual service itself because we only have four Hyper-V hosts. Recently we had two, but we've put in two all-flash Hyper-V hosts. We have all-flash storage. It is good storage with loads of RAM. Most of them have got three-quarters of a terabyte of RAM, and they all are dual 32-core processors. There is no lack of power or anything in them. Because our servers are virtualized, it means that we do have four rack servers.

It really reduces the load. By using replication, we can separate out the servers and put them at different locations. We have them attached to the 10 gig fiber. With the replication facility, even if we do lose a server, we can be up and running within seconds or minutes at worst.

It is actually very low on resources. It doesn't use many resources. It is also very easy to tailor. You can change things like the amount of memory and storage on the fly. 

It is very stable and reliable. I like its replication feature, which is very good. It is also very easy to move the virtual machines across push servers without any difficulty. 

Its performance is also very good. Now with this pandemic, a lot of workers are working from home. A lot of workers have been using laptops as their desktop computers, and they would remote into a virtual PC. There is no difficulty, and they can't tell the difference between this and the real one. It is much easier to manage.

The Hyper-V management console could be improved to make it easier. It should be a little bit more granular. Various virtual switches could also be improved to make virtual desk management slightly better. 

The replication could be improved slightly. The checkpoints or snapshots could be improved to make it a bit more transparent to the user.

I have been using this solution for around 15 years.

It is very stable and very reliable. I never had any failures of any description with it, which is amazing. We might have had hardware failures on the host, but everything is redundant, so there is plenty of resilience there.

I haven't come across any scalability issues, but you need a fairly powerful host machine. 

Nearly all users are using Hyper-V in some way, but they're not aware that it is Hyper-V that they're using while logging in to the servers. The servers are all virtualized, except for the physical servers that are hosting Hyper-V. We have quite a lot of virtual servers. The gateway that they use is a virtualized gateway server. Email servers are all virtualized. All sorts of services and filling servers are all virtualized. Virtualization reduces the physical footprint.

I never had to use Hyper-V technical support from Microsoft. It has been pretty stable.

It is very straightforward, very simple, and very quick. It is very quick to set up a virtual machine. You can set it up in minutes.

Because we're an NGO or a charity, we get discount rates from Microsoft. The costs are not astronomical for us. To give you an example, Office 2019 would only cost 30 or 45 for us. We tend to use the on-premises version rather than the cloud version. The reason is that the subscription service works out more expensive after a few years than the on-premise version. We're not worried about having the bleeding edge stuff. We just want it to be functional.

I would advise making sure that you have the hardware that is up to the job. You should also have a clear plan of what you want to virtualize. Make sure that there is room for growth in terms of the physical hardware for the host, which is the server hosting Hyper-V. 

It is very robust. It doesn't consume as many resources as VMware, for instance. It is fairly slick. It is very functional and doesn't really present great challenges.

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

I am a solution provider and Hyper-V is one of the products that I implement for my customers.

There are two very good things about this product including licensing and stability. 

If you have a lot of Hyper-V servers then you will need an additional product, which is the System Center Virtual Machine Manager, so that you can control the host environments of all of your virtual machines. It would be nice if they provided a free management console that we could use to manage all of the hosts for no additional fee.

There should be a way to restart the services and not the whole station, which would minimize downtime, especially when updating the operating system. This is a feature that everybody needs.

I started working with Hyper-V in 2012, between eight and nine years ago.

The product is very stable, in particular with the most recent version of Windows Server. This is true even in a cluster environment, and I have never found an issue with stability.

Obviously, when you are using Windows Server update, it will restart the server occasionally and you will have downtime, but it will be minimal. If you don't want to have any downtime then you will need multiple hosts in a cluster environment. You can move your virtual machines from one host to another, which means that you can restart the server and not affect the service. This can be important because sometimes, the restart process takes too much time to complete.

It is very easy to scale Hyper-V. However, it depends on the version that you have because if you have the Standard Edition then you only have three hosts. If you want more than three hosts then you will need a Datacenter version.

I have experience with VMware and one of the nice features is that you can restart a service after an update and everything goes live in seconds, rather than minutes.

These two technologies compete with each other, and in deciding which to use, I speak with users about their needs. I also speak with them about the knowledge of their technical team and the budget. These are all factors in the decision because I want to provide the best solution from both a technical and budget perspective.

The initial setup is very easy. All you have to do is watch a 10-minute YouTube video and you can deploy the hardware.

It can be deployed in different ways. If you need to have a virtual environment then it will be hosted on Microsoft Azure. If instead, you have your own private cloud then it will be hosted on-premises, on your physical servers.

The tricky part about this field is not the deployment. It's troubleshooting and finding solutions for issues. For just about any software, you can deploy anything. Even if you don't understand anything about the product, you can deploy anything from scratch and there is no issue with it. The problem is figuring how to solve issues and find solutions outside of the box. Almost all Microsoft issues are solved in this way. It's not about what you find online or in the documentation. Rather, you need to think outside the box. It's the hardest part about this field.

If you have the standard edition of Windows server then with each copy of the operating system, you have two virtual machines for free.

If you have a Windows Datacenter license then you have unlimited virtual machines for free. This is much better compared to ESXi or VMware, where each virtual machine requires its own license. In the Windows Datacenter, you can have as many as you want.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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.

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.

I use it personally for training. I do some testing for myself. I use it for virtualization and have used it to compare testing functionality. 

It has not helped my organization. I just use it for testing.

The solution works well on Windows.

The product, overall, works well. 

I like the functionality. Users can use it in a hybrid scenario.

The virtualization capabilities are good.

When it comes to Hyper-V, the worst thing is it's based on the Windows operating system. For the installation of Hyper-V, you're supposed to install the right operating system. For me, it's strange.

I have some experience with the solution, however, I haven't used it for too long. I've used it for the last 12 months, at least. I might have used it for six months in total. 

I'm not sure which version I'm using. It was the basic setup on the 2016 servers.

I use the solution for my personal projects. 

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. 

We use this solution to provide visualization for our two main server clusters; one that hosts most of our production virtual machines, and another that hosts Active Directory and the Exchange platforms.

We appreciate how easy this solution is to implement on standalone severs.

Some of the license options available with this product allow for upgrades to be carried out without having to incur extra charges.

We would like to have a cloning function added to this product.

We have been using this solution for six years, and are using the 2012 R2 release version.

We have found this solution to be quite stable in our experience.

This solution is scalable if the new server, or new node, is prepared identically to the existing cluster that it will be added to. The product also requires the same user accounts and service accounts that exist currently to be created, and for some shared storage to be in use.

The support for this solution is mostly good; they are reactive and always solve small issues. However, we have had some problems with more complicated issues taking a long time to be fixed.

The initial setup of this solution on a standalone server is quite straightforward. However, if you want to create a cluster of hosts, then you have to configure a large number of requirements and liaise with a lot of different systems teams, which makes it challenging.

This solution was implemented using a team provided by our third-party reseller.

We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one.

We would recommend that any organization considering this solution looks at the range of software they are currently running, to ensure complete compatibility and allow for easy migration to this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.