Hyper-V Reviews

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 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.

In general, based on my little experience with Hyper-V, I see a lot of obstacles. I think it falls behind the other competitors.

There are several areas that can be improved. The network configuration, for example, can be improved. The storage as well, can be improved. I find it very dependent on the active directory as a service, overall. I think they have to review that. I understand that active directory is an integral part of that infrastructure for authentication and logging, etc..., but it can be an obstacle. I think they should review that mechanism.

They have to review the overall architecture of that solution. It is a Type-2 virtualization, which means it is not bare metal. That is one problem or one issue that has to be reviewed. In my view as an engineer, the best solutions in this domain are those which are bare metal. Those that are deployed directly on the hardware get the most out of the hardware. But in Microsoft, this is not the case, it is implemented on Windows. If something goes wrong with the Windows machine, all the VMs on it are in trouble. And we all know that Windows has always been a target for viruses and bugs. So in my opinion, they have to review that, to remove that design.

I don't personally have strong experience with Hyper-V, but as a company we are reselling it.

Based on my experience, it is stable.

It is not that scalable or flexible.

On a scale from one to 5, I would rate the scalability a three.

The initial setup is easy.

I think Microsoft is a little better in pricing. But as I said, I'm not a pricing person, and I can't speak with great confidence on that. But in general, Microsoft is a little lower than BMI.

I do not highly recommend Hyper-V.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Hyper-V a six.

In terms of advice to people looking to implement Hyper-V, I would tell them not to rely much on the Hyper-V solution in terms of flexibility and scalability. It is a stable solution, but overall, considering the backup, the replication, and the whole range of features that VMR offers, I think that it's better if they look at VMR or other contenders, in this technology.

Hyper-V acts as the hypervisor for our virtualization platform. We are using it on a three-tier infrastructure and it manages our VMs that store our files and applications. 

The most valuable feature is that it's an end-to-end solution.

It's not completely stable because your stack becomes bloated.

We have been using Hyper-V since 2008.

Stability-wise, it is okay but not great. I'd say that it works but it's not perfect.

Hyper-V is limited when it comes to scalability. If you have a data center license then you can scale up or down, or use the main virtual machines on the server. However, if you have a normal, or standard license, you can only run two virtual machine instances.

We have approximately 1,000 users.

I have not had much experience with technical support.

We previously used vSphere but we switched because VMware costs a lot and we have a small environment.

The installation and initial setup are very easy. It takes about five minutes to deploy.

We implemented it ourselves. We have three people in our team for deployment and maintenance.

Our licensing fees are paid for as a package with the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. We have to pay for our data center licenses.

This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security.

In summary, this product is not perfect but it works. At this point, we have not yet decided how long we will continue using it. This is something that we'll decide, moving forward.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.