Hyper-V Reviews

My major use case is virtualization.

Integrations bring the biggest benefit to us. We use half of our virtual machines that are Microsoft, so it works better hosted in Hyper-V compared to VMware.

Clustering and failover capabilities in the product help with our availability. It helped because we switched to Hyper-V because it was lower cost than paying for high availability in VMware. We need Microsoft licenses for virtual machines, so it costs less than buying two solutions for that. We have data center editions, so it did not cost us additional money compared to paying for high availability from VMware.

I think it helped a little, but not so different compared to VMware regarding security and bandwidth optimization.

I think the areas for improvements in the product are reporting and best practices detection. It is hard to tell where the bottleneck is. For example, in performance, it is hard to tell what is a weak spot in the solution or in our architecture or hardware.

I have been working with Hyper-V for two years.

We have stable performance, but we see some glitches with some snapshots on Linux boxes in Linux virtual machines. However, with Windows virtual machines, everything is functioning properly.

With two nodes, the impact of Hyper-V resource consolidation on our hardware costs is not significant. It would probably be better with a larger number of nodes, but there is a redundancy cost for high availability because data are stored mirroring on two nodes.

I think the scalability of Hyper-V is quite scalable for our purpose.

I have never had experience with support regarding Hyper-V.

I think it was Hyper-V vSphere Essentials and VMware vSphere Essentials.

We have had Essentials, but not Foundation.

I think installation for the product is easy.

I bought the product from the partner through the reseller.

I definitely track savings in terms of time saving and money saving. It saves us money compared to VMware because we still need to pay Microsoft licenses, but in addition to that we need to pay for VMware for virtualization. It saves us the cost of VMware in high availability edition. I think it is Essentials Plus edition.

I think regarding price and license for Hyper-V, it is affordable.

I prefer much more configuration style in VMware compared to Microsoft, probably because I was used to it. However, I think Hyper-V is much more straightforward.

I have worked with Microsoft for almost 20 years, but with Storage Spaces Direct for two years.

I work with PowerShell scripts with Hyper-V only a little.

We are using mostly other software for automation, so I do not do much automation by myself.

I am speaking about vSphere.

I would rate this review a 7.

We are using Sophos Endpoint and Microsoft Hyper-V for virtualized servers. We are using the end product given to us by a Microsoft partner.

The best features of Hyper-V are that when you have one physical server, you can use several virtualized servers, which helps in maximizing the available space.

We use Hyper-V Live Migration feature to migrate information from one server to another, especially when doing installations of new servers. We use this feature to transfer applications and information between servers.

I have seen return on investment with Hyper-V because it is both time-saving and cost-effective. You need only one physical server that can host several virtualized servers within the same physical server instead of having multiple physical servers. You can virtualize up to eight or so servers within the same box.

Areas of Hyper-V that have room for improvement include making it more user-friendly and easier to use, especially for those who are new to it.

Regarding the pricing of Hyper-V, the licensing is somewhat expensive. Since we are buying it through a third party from a supplier or partner, it becomes more expensive as a customer. If there were an opportunity to get it directly from Microsoft, it could be better.

I have approximately two years of experience working with Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is a very scalable solution because of the new developments that are coming up.

I would rate technical support from Microsoft a nine on a scale of one to ten.

Positive

Before Hyper-V, we were using direct physical servers.

The initial setup of Hyper-V was easy.

I have seen return on investment with Hyper-V because it is both time-saving and cost-effective. You need only one physical server that can host several virtualized servers within the same physical server instead of having multiple physical servers. You can virtualize up to eight or so servers within the same box.

Hyper-V is a stable solution.

I will check and report about Hyper-V Network Virtualization later.

We use PowerShell scripts with Hyper-V. The number of routine tasks automated through these PowerShell scripts is approximately 12.

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

I use Azure Monitor and other monitoring solutions to support clients in Accenture's managed services. We support multiple environments, primarily on cloud platforms like Azure and AWS, and also on-premises environments with operating systems like Windows, Linux, and Solaris, among others.

Microsoft Hyper-V is useful for maintaining workloads with smaller footprints, especially in remote or retail settings. Its cost-effectiveness is beneficial for clients.

I find Hyper-V useful in managing virtual machines in environments with smaller workloads. It offers the stability needed for non-enterprise data centers and has improved over time. 

Additionally, its cost-effectiveness makes it an attractive option for remote sites or smaller workloads.

Hyper-V should improve features such as Quality of Service enhancements and VLAN management. 

Additionally, the frequent updates from Microsoft can affect stability, which can be optimized.

I have been working with Hyper-V since the product was launched. My primary experience is with VMware, but I have consistently worked with Hyper-V across its various versions.

While Hyper V had stability issues initially, it has improved over time. However, frequent Windows updates can impact stability compared to VMware ESXi.

Hyper V can support over two hundred virtual processors and around 12 TB of memory. It is best used for smaller workloads rather than large-scale enterprise environments.

Technical support from Microsoft is excellent, rated ten out of ten. We rarely encounter challenges not addressed by Microsoft's support.

Positive

I primarily use VMware for most workloads as it offers more stability and advanced features.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is straightforward. However, Hyper-V could benefit from features like automatic resource management similar to VMware.

Hyper-V's licensing costs are lower compared to VMware, making it cost-effective for smaller workloads.

We evaluate and use VMware predominantly due to its advanced features and stability for critical workloads in enterprise environments.

For critical workloads and more stable environments, I would recommend VMware over Hyper-V. However, for non-critical tasks or budget-constrained environments, Hyper-V is viable.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We have a virtualization environment where we use Hyper-V on the ESXA cluster. We install Hyper-V, then we install virtual machines, and configure the virtual machines there. This setup does not require any license from Microsoft.

I use Hyper-V to create virtual machines on hardware. Hyper-V is an alternative solution to VMware. It is beneficial for those who need to set up virtual machines without licensing requirements. 

It is completely free, which is a significant advantage. 

Additionally, it is easy to set up, scoring eight out of ten for setup ease. The product is stable, although it requires improvement in automation features for better functionality.

Some automation features are required compared to other tools. Hyper-V could be improved by implementing the same set of features that other tools provide. 

All the actions are manual, and if customization is needed, it is difficult with Hyper-V. The reporting is a bit difficult, and additional tools are needed for audit logs. 

I recommend Microsoft to look into market offerings and integrate similar features.

I have been using Hyper-V for some years, approximately ten years.

Hyper-V is not much difficult in terms of stability, though automation is unavailable, and reporting is difficult. Whenever audit logs are needed, they are not readily available. We need to depend on other tools.

I find the solution to be scalable, rating it eight out of ten.

I have never contacted Microsoft support for Hyper-V.

Positive

Initial choices include free of charge product services like Hyper-V, later moving to licensed solutions if required.

The setup is easy. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Hyper-V is completely free and requires no licensing fee.

I considered VMware as an alternate solution.

For those who want to use Hyper-V and are evaluating it, I suggest trying Hyper-V as a starting point and then possibly moving to other alternate tools from there.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I am using Hyper-V because it is easy, user-friendly, and offers high availability options. I use it to manage virtual machines and demonstrate Microsoft products to students. In my organization, Hyper-V is used on-premises rather than on the cloud.

Hyper-V is used on-premises, not in the cloud, because the cloud already has virtualization support. This eliminates the need to use Hyper-V on the cloud.

The most valuable features of Hyper-V include high availability and management for virtual machine management. Additionally, it is recognized for being easy and user-friendly with higher availability options. The initial setup is very easy and can be done in a few steps without needing complex procedures.

I suggest improvements in platform support and performance considerations for Hyper-V. It would be beneficial to enhance these areas to ensure a more robust experience.

I have been working with Hyper-V since the end of 2012.

I rate the stability of Hyper-V as eight out of ten.

There were discussions on whether we are looking at horizontal scalability or vertical scalability, but there is no clear answer in terms of rating. It seems scalability is seen as a different matter altogether.

The technical support is very good, and I would rate it between eight and nine out of ten.

Positive

I used KVM, Proxmox, and VMware solutions before. The switch to Hyper-V was influenced by the cost benefits as Hyper-V was provided as a free product until 2019.

The initial setup of Hyper-V is very easy. It can be done in a few steps without needing any complex procedures. We set up Hyper-V within minutes, though expanding the infrastructure might take more time.

The deployment was coordinated with the integrator and end-user teams. This was a decision-making process to use the platform.

At this time, I don't have specific answers regarding ROI or cost savings. I am not able to provide any insights here.

Until 2019, Hyper-V was a cost-effective solution because it was available as a free product. This influenced our decision to select it for virtualization consolidation.

We evaluated KVM, Proxmox, and VMware solutions.

I recommend Hyper-V for its features. Overall, I rate the solution as eight out of ten.

For my organization, we are choosing Hyper-V because our customers are using this solution.

We use Hyper-V virtualization for our customers who already go with the Microsoft product, and some systems are in Azure Cloud while others use this on-prem Hyper-V solution.

Hyper-V is a good product with some limitations, and we can suggest it to customers who mostly prefer Windows.

For backup and disaster recovery with Hyper-V, we do the same as others by using snapshots, and we can integrate it with any backup system. I see no issue for backup and restoration.

There are no issues with integrations; we can integrate any backup software with Hyper-V without any limitation.

The weak point I see in Hyper-V is related to the licensing part. If we create a new VM, we have to get a new license, which I see as not good for Hyper-V.

In future updates, I would like to see improvements in reporting and a resolution to some security weaknesses.

I have been using this solution for about two or three years.

It is not difficult to install Hyper-V; it is very easy. For me, it is installed, and VMs and everything is easy.

It took only one day to install Hyper-V, but for the monitoring system and everything else, I had to take two or three days to configure.

For the installation, three engineers participated from my side.

The pricing for Hyper-V is a little bit higher, but it is below VMware. Currently, VMware has a high price in the market, and I think Microsoft has a competitive pricing structure, allowing us to migrate from VMware to Hyper-V.

Competitive products include VMware, VDI, Nutanix, and we also see Proxmox as a challenge to Hyper-V.

In future updates, I would like to see improvements in reporting and a resolution to some security weaknesses.

I currently do not have knowledge in the area of AI, and we are not doing any projects for AI yet, so there's no use of the AI part.

For now, we are not working with AI or Copilot.

I rate Hyper-V eight out of ten.

I use Hyper-V primarily to create virtual machines (VMs).

I find the quick provision feature in Hyper-V to be extremely helpful. Additionally, the ease of setup since we have been using it for a long time also adds value. Hyper-V supports the creation of VMs efficiently.

Today, most backup tools and others prefer VMware. Hyper-V should ensure the features of VMware are covered within its platform.

I have been working with Hyper-V for almost 20 years.

I would rate the stability of Hyper-V as eight out of ten.

The scalability of Hyper-V is great; I would rate it nine out of ten.

The technical support for Hyper-V is excellent, and I rate it as nine out of ten.

Positive

We have been using Hyper-V for a long time and did not use a different solution before.

The initial setup of Hyper-V was easy. Since we have been using it for a long time, it has always been straightforward.

The pricing and licensing for Hyper-V follow a standard pricing model for enterprise customers.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Hyper-V.

I would recommend Hyper-V based on skill sets. If they have a choice, better use Hyper-V; otherwise, go for VMware or any other tool. 

Overall, I would rate Hyper-V nine out of ten.

The first benefit for the customer and myself is the ease of management. It's not complicated, and it operates smoothly when the architecture is properly set up for the customer. It functions highly efficiently and streamlined, making it optimal for daily operations.

Microsoft's market is improving because it's becoming more open to open-source technologies. It's becoming more open and stable, and a significant advantage is the strong performance of Linux and Linux Cloud on its platforms. The integration with Azure is excellent, providing seamless performance. If customers want to create a hybrid cloud, it's easy to configure and integrate with Azure. Active Directory integration is straightforward to set up.

They need to focus more on improving their on-premises solutions. There seems to be a stronger emphasis on cloud services, neglecting areas like service packs or security updates. Managing the Hyper-V server requires installing many prerequisites in the environment, which can be cumbersome.

Additionally, vendors don't always certify third-party integrations for large workloads like SAP on the Hyper-V platform. Microsoft should establish certifications with major software companies, such as ERPs or CRMs. Doing so could help make Hyper-V a more attractive option for solutions like Salesforce, which would expand the offerings available to customers.

I have been using Hyper-V for eight months.

The system works quite well, but Microsoft's maintenance costs are high. You need to subscribe to their support services. While they’ve promised local support in the future, in Mexico, for example, high-level support still requires reaching out to teams in other countries, which can be expensive.

If you're looking for premium support from Microsoft, it comes at a significant cost. However, you could handle much internal support without relying too heavily on Microsoft’s external support.

Scaling was a major issue with Hyper-V—it wasn't scalable and didn't work well. The only way to get it functioning was to manage everything manually, starting with the installation. Now, it's much more scalable, but the key is to plan the architecture based on the workloads you want to offer.

You need to design an architecture that can handle the demands of heavy workloads. If the customer has different types of workloads, each requires a tailored architecture. Using the same setup for all workloads will lead to inefficiencies and wasted time and resources.

To ensure scalability, it's crucial to build the infrastructure correctly, especially regarding storage, networking, CPU, and RAM resources. When done properly, Hyper-V scales very well.

You need significant experience and many hours of experience working on these operations. With that expertise, you can manage much of the support, reducing the need to rely on Microsoft’s support services. You can take full advantage of your skills and minimize the dependency on external help from Microsoft.

Neutral

The initial setup was hard due to numerous bugs, but now it's much easier. We've gained much experience. Executing that deployment is quite simple when it comes to the solution, deployment, and designing a solid architecture.

If I need to add a new cluster, it's quite easy and could take about a day, depending on the architecture. It suggests longer customer timelines depending on the customer's requirements and sector.

It's straightforward to handle it with multiple existing clusters on my service. I need to prepare the hardware, set up the operating system, and install the necessary plugins.

We're also moving towards infrastructure as code, so Terraform is becoming a key tool for larger deployments. It simplifies the process, and using Terraform with Hyper-V works quite well.

ROI is very good. It is 3x of the cost.

It's a medium-priced solution when using Microsoft's Cloud program. The combination of hardware, software, and customer launching services balances cost and value. Initially, it was very expensive, and customers paid a high price, but now the costs are decreasing. Microsoft is motivated to shift workloads to Azure, which has led to more affordable licensing over time. It becomes progressively cheaper each year, making it a more attractive option for customers.

With this program, a full server with a dual-core processor costs around seventy dollars monthly. There are additional costs to consider. If you want to use the full management features, that adds another thirty dollars per month. Additionally, SQL Server and Windows Server come with their costs. When you combine all these components, you might spend around seven hundred dollars per month.

Using third-party software can be very effective for migration. Various replication tools are available for this purpose. I prefer other solutions like Veeam or TensorFlow for smoother migrations to the desired platform.

Microsoft is heavily pushing customers toward Azure. This might not be a long-term solution if you rely on on-premises setups.

It's crucial to plan carefully for VoIP deployments in Hyper-V. Migrating to another hypervisor like KVM or VMware can be challenging. Hyper-V has a unique way of handling virtual machines, which complicates migration. While it’s possible to transition, it requires significant effort and planning.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is used to make effective use of resources. We had a data center locally and wanted to manage multiple instances, applications, and services. So, we had to use a virtual environment to efficiently use them at a reduced cost.

The scope of the solution is valuable. Hyper-V is a Microsoft product. So, it also has a cloud version. Migration is easy. We can deploy multiple VMs. We do not need a separate solution for it.

The tool is expensive.

I have been using the solution for four years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. Nothing is perfect.

The tool’s scalability is good. It has a high availability and fault tolerance capabilities. We had 20,000 users in our organization.

The support team is customer-friendly and provides good support.

The product is easy to deploy. We must deploy it in bare metal. It is part of the capabilities of Windows's existing operating system. We can also deploy VMs. We can deploy it on laptops. It provides a lot of flexibility during POCs. We needed five server management engineers for the deployment.

We can deploy the tool ourselves. We do not need technical support from a third-party vendor.

We opted for a volume license.

People who want to use the product must check if it matches their requirements.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The user interface of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required. Hyper-V's user interface is difficult to use compared to VMware's. Hyper-V also has some hardware limitations. It is not easy to integrate it with other tools, making it an area where improvements are required.

The tool should be improved in some areas, particularly scalability-wise.

A heterogeneous architecture should be introduced in Hyper-V. It is very difficult to convert a physical machine to a virtual machine. Hyper-V should be improved just like VMware. Hyper-V It should introduce a converter that can be used for the conversion of hardware machines to software machines.

I have been using Hyper-V for two years.

My company did not face any issues during the product's implementation phase.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I would not say that it is a totally reasonably priced product as it is merged with our overall costs associated with Microsoft products. We bought some enterprise licenses for our company's data center for Windows Server 2019. The licensing part is bundled with the data center version meant for Windows Server 2019, so the costs are manageable.

I am generally satisfied with the use of the product. The tool has some limited features. It does not very advanced features. We have some other sites in our company, so we can use Hyper-V for some reason, and I cannot share its details with anyone. Our company is okay with the tool but not fully satisfied with Hyper-V if I compare it to VMware.

The tool's most beneficial part for managing our company's virtual environments revolves around the fact that it is included in the data center licenses, so one does not have to buy it separately as it is with the data center version.

The tool is very easy to implement, so we can manage it in our company. We can manage and deploy the tool quickly if it is VMware. With Hyper-V, we can just deploy the tool to meet our needs. In our company, we can easily deploy Hyper-V, which is why we use it on some sites but not all.

The main issue with the tool is our financial constraint. In Hyper-V, we can meet our financial needs, and that is the reason why we use it. Hyper-V. We have many financial constraints with VMware, so we cannot deploy it. VMware is a very good tool, very easy to deploy, very easy to manage, and has a very easy interface and flexibility with the other hardware products while being easy to use the integration features. With the financial crisis in every country, it is very difficult to manage solutions on the cloud.

I recommend Hyper-V to a small organization or company that can easily manage the hassles associated with Hyper-V.

I rate the tool a six and a half out of ten.