We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Odin Virtuozzo Containers based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."The most valuable feature is being able to do checkpoints then roll back to the checkpoint because that's what we need to test the software. We're testing the installation and then we roll it back and retest it."
"We can perform maintenance on equipment during the day because we can live migrate all of the machines from one server to another."
"The virtualized applications and real time audition of the VMA is quite a good feature."
"The setup was straightforward and easy for our company. The deployment was fast."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware."
"Hyper-V helps to make a replica server between two machines. It is very easy to learn."
"The performance is very good."
"When you run templates on the containers on Virtuozzo they have a lot of back-ups."
"Security, computing balance, and taking snapshots could be improved. Features like DRS and memory ballooning could be added."
"VMware has antivirus protection that covers the entire VM. If Microsoft could have something similar to this in Hyper-V, that would be great."
"There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable."
"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."
"The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Some of the interfaces need improvements, like the virtual switch or virtual VLAN interfaces."
"Microsoft tech support is horrible."
"It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better."
"Odin Virtuozzo has poor support and needs to improve."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Odin Virtuozzo Containers is ranked 11th in Server Virtualization Software with 2 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Odin Virtuozzo Containers is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Odin Virtuozzo Containers writes "Significant backup for containers, but the customer service is terrible". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE and Oracle VM VirtualBox, whereas Odin Virtuozzo Containers is most compared with Proxmox VE, Nutanix AHV Virtualization, KVM and VMware vSphere.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.