Hyper-V Reviews

The primary use case is for customers who want to virtualize their infrastructure, but are on a budget and don't need advanced features. 

This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints. 

Security could be improved and they need to have some sort of a Distributed Resource Scheduler like VMware. Hyper-V doesn't have that kind of a solution. Computing balance could be improved. If you have three or four nodes in a cluster, it should look at the load and based on the algorithm they use, it will place the VMs automatically onto a utilized node in the cluster. Memory ballooning, where unused memory can be cleaned and given to demanded VMs, is a feature I would like to see. 

Taking snapshots could also be improved. It's not straightforward and I had a couple of issues with the Windows server 2000 tool when I took a snapshot of the active directory. When I went to restore that snapshot, I had a problem with active directory sync issues. VMware doesn't have this problem. Even if you're taking a snapshot of the active directory, you can easily revert back and you will not have any trouble with active directory replications. 

I have been using Hyper-V since 2012. 

It is stable, especially if you do Hyper-V clustering. Some customers don't invest much into IT infrastructure, so I design Hyper-V-cluster-based solutions. The only potential problems are attacks on Windows servers, vulnerability issues, or receiving stolen packages could require you to restart it. But it does its job. 

Some of my customers have software assurance from Microsoft, but those who don't have to pay if they need technical assistance. Microsoft Azure has support, but if a customer has deployed the infrastructure on-premises and they don't have software assurance, they will have a problem getting support from Microsoft. 

The installation took about fifteen to twenty minutes for a Microsoft Windows server. 

For deployment, you need expertise in terms of storage, network, and computing. If a customer requires a high performance, we need to look at the computing, processor, and what kind of storage and network switches we're using. You need an expertise team in order to get the best solution. 

I installed this product myself. 

I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints. 

VMware has a lot of features. For example, with vMotion, if an administrator wants to do maintenance, they can do live migrations. Hyper-V does the job and is okay, but it's not the same as VMware. 

If you are on a budget and can't invest too much into IT infrastructure, I recommend Hyper-V. If budget isn't a problem and you're looking for the best solution, I would go for VMware. I have about 85 customers that are using Hyper-V clusters at the moment. Hyper-V is okay for utilizing the file server, clusters, or active directory, but you won't get advanced features. 

I would rate Hyper-V a six out of ten because it is missing a lot of features. 

I'd like to see better predictive diagnostics, so I know what's going on with the machines. 

I've been using Hyper-V since about 2012.

Hyper-V has been pretty good. I have no complaints about the stability. 

It scales well so far, but I think we're nearing the edge of that. We have somewhere in the region of about 200 users.

The support could be better.

I can't say setting up Hyper-V was particularly complicated. The deployment was about two months with the help of some integrators.

I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs.

I rate Hyper-V seven out of 10. It's good for what it does. If you have a small or medium-scale acclimatization, it's an excellent solution. But in terms of scaling larger, you might want to consider something else.

We use Hyper-V for hardware virtualization.

I have found it difficult to manage more than one virtual machine.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately seven months.

Hyper-V is not as stable as VMware and should be improved.

We have approximately 20 users using the solution.

The installation was straightforward.

We have a four-person team that consists of an administrator, network administrator, managers, and system administrator that does the maintenance and support of the solution.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

We supply Hyper-V for hardware virtualization to customers.

Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

One of the network problems I face is I cannot introduce other security layers on top of Hyper-V as you can in VMware. When it comes to the network the VMware is more flexible than Hyper-V.

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

The solution is stable.

We have not had any issues that we would need to contact the support.

I have previously used VMware solutions.

There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper.

The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.

I would advise customers that are Microsoft users to use Hyper-V if they want to have more cost-efficiency. Additionally, if the customer uses a lot of Windows Server for the guest OS, I will recommend Hyper-V.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

We provide services, such as virtualization, website hosting, and some infrastructure services. We provide all the services to the public companies.

The product is a great option for enterprise-level organizations.

The solution comes in many languages. We can have it set up in Portuguese, for example. 

The interface is quite good.

The setup is pretty straightforward. 

The product can be a bit difficult to use. I find, for example, Citrix to be much less difficult. 

It's hard to calculate how long we've used this solution. It's been a while. 

I also work with Citrix. In my opinion, Citrix has the more complete online material.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not a difficult process. 

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We don't provide products. We are implementors. 

In this company, we work mostly with on-premise solutions, such as hypervisors. For example, the Microsoft Hypervisors, Citrix Hypervisors, et cetera. Here in the company, we don't use exactly cloud solutions, or not entirely cloud. We use many hybrid solutions. 

We didn't exactly choose this product. It was more a question of legacy. We've just kept using it over time. When I came to the company, they were using it, and we've continued to do so.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for virtualization.

I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users.

VMware has antivirus protection that covers the entire VM. If Microsoft could have something similar to this in Hyper-V, that would be great. Currently, in Hyper-V, we have to have a separate antivirus for each VM. If there could be umbrella coverage to the entire setup, then that would be beneficial.

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

The solution could be more stable as it is vulnerable to viruses, ransomware, and malware.

We have approximately 100 customers using this solution.

The support from Microsoft is good.

The installation is very easy, it takes approximately 30 minutes.

We have three supporting engineers that do the implementation of the solution.

There is a perpetual license to use the solution and there are additional fees for support.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day.

Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update. For example, if you use Hyper-V, you should restart once a month. It is very hard to operate.

Also, it is very slow.

The stability and scalability could be improved. It could be more user friendly as well.

I've been using it for, maybe, three years.

It is not stable. There are problems with backup as well.

It is not scalable.

I am satisfied with technical support.

It is very easy to install, and it can be done in a day.

I installed it myself.

I don't recommend Hyper-V and would rate it at six on a scale from one to ten.

We use it for anything like production and everything we're running on right now.

I like that it's easy to use.

The backup site could be better. We used to face a lot of issues, and we are looking to solve that now. We are in the process of moving all the infrastructure to the cloud. It could also use more integration on the management part. We also need more integration on the monitoring sites.

I have been using Hyper-V for four to five years.

It could be more stable. We faced a lot of issues on the backup site.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. We are a global center, and we use Hyper-V across 22 countries.

We also use VMware vSphere.

It is a straightforward implementation. If you want to put Hyper-V as a single load, it will take about one to two hours. If you want high availability, it will take approximately four to five hours.

We implemented this solution.

I have been using VMware and Hyper-V. Comparing the two, I love to use VMware more than Hyper-V. However, I would recommend this solution to potential users.

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