Hyper-V Reviews

The product is easy to manage. It improves our VM management. 

The solution should be compatible with different systems. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Hyper-V's scalability is good. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has two users. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward. We have five resources to manage its deployment and maintenance. 

Hyper-V's deployment is in-house. 

The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual. 

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. 

We use Hyper-V for test virtualization.

We used this product for our virtualization environment.

One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use.

We would like it to migrate virtual machines without interruptions.

I have been using this solution for five years.

The solution needs to improve the stability.

Hyper-V can scale well.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster.

Neutral

The installation was not easy and it took approximately two days.

We needed to have a consultant for the implementation. We have two administrators and one manager that does the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

I work in an environment where we are required to use them, as well as for DevOps and a few other things like Helios and similar things. As a result, I use it for DevOps testing, infrastructure, and implementation within the product areas of my clients.

The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features.

The WSUS could stand to improve a little bit. It is also foggy at times. Again, I use a wide variety of products and services, but going through each one would take much longer, but WSUS is an awesome Microsoft product that could use some improvement in terms of reporting tools and such. Even the additions and servers work is more difficult. Even the manual add is difficult, and reporting occasionally breaks into the endpoints, but that could be one to five servers when I'm checking a hundred to 200 servers.  I suppose it's insignificant, but when it causes problems with those minor details, it can be difficult. But, aside from that, it works well.

It does what it needs to do and is adequate for the time being. It completes tasks such as replication cycles and other similar tasks. That's probably the only way it can be. In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication. If it could have been a simpler process, or if there was another way they could have done it, it would be beneficial. For example, if I'm doing site-to-site replication, I would normally have to do that in terms of bandwidth; Cisco has some, and they have some different tools that would enable the packages to be smaller and faster, but maybe just Microsoft takes a while to do the site-to-site replication.

I have been working with Hyper-V for approximately 15 years.

This solution is used by 10 administrators, and the product itself has 500,000, or 600,000 users.

We have pretty good in-house expertise, we haven't needed to reach out for actual technical support.

I test products ranging from VOIP to Microsoft to virtualization, VMware, and Hyper-V. I am always testing products and then deciding whether to put them into production for use or scale operations.

In the last year, I would say it has been a voice over IP products as well as a couple of SBC products. This is also true for VM testing and Microsoft products, such as Hyper-V, and a couple of software for voice over IP integration.

Microsoft, as well as perhaps eight or nine others.

I also work with DevOps.

We haven't used the VMware solution to its full potential, and the reason for that is that the software that is currently used on that platform lacks certain features that would allow us to use VMware to its full potential, but it resides on the VMware platform.

In order to obtain the products, we must go through a third-party vendor. We can't go directly to Microsoft.

I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

Hyper-V is used to virtualize machines. You install the latest version of Microsoft Windows Server on your hardware, and you install Hyper-V in the Microsoft Windows Server. You can now install multiple virtual servers within Hyper-V. They all can have different functionality.

The servers can be used for many things, such as file servers, ERPs, and web servers. All of this was not available before the advent of virtualization. With virtualization it's easy with one hardware machine, you can have several servers.

Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 20 years.

Hyper-V is a stable solution, but not as stable as VMware.

The solution has good scalability.

The server is accessible to all the users that need to have access to the network resources.

The in-house Microsoft specialists will attempt to resolve any issues we are facing and if they are not able to do it, we escalate to the head office. If the head office is not able to do assist with a resolution, then they escalate to Microsoft for the final support. The Microsoft support has been very good and this is why we are still with Microsoft.

I have previously used VMware. 

VMware may be a better solution than Hyper-V because Hyper-V is a bit more sophisticated and complex. VMware is not as complex. However, the best option depends on the company and what the business wants. That's what we determine, what is best for us. We are using Hyper-V because we do not need to get a separate license in our Microsoft system.

The implementation of Hyper-V is more difficult than VMware.

The deployment time depends on the number of servers you have in total but to deploy one of the servers, would take approximately 15 minutes. You have to, first of all, start with the installation of the server, and do all the conversion. It could take you close to four hours, depending on the speed of the machine.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We have certified Microsoft specialists as part of our team. If you did not have them we would use an outsourced implementation.

In Nigeria, we have three to four people managing the solution, but in other places, the number could be different. For example, in Ghana, we have five managing the solution. 

There is a license to use this solution and it is an annual purchase.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

We usually use Microsoft Hyper-V for very small customers that don't have the budget for another library or hypervisor. We use Hyper-V when the customer has only one or two virtual machines. It's typically bundled with the Windows Server operating system, so we can provide virtual machines for free. 

In Malaysia, we started the cloud journey in 2020. Most people were looking for services, and many customers wanted to migrate to the cloud immediately. They just look forward and make some comparisons. If you say, "I want to migrate to a cloud," typically, our customers will ask for AWS as a primary choice, followed by Microsoft Azure.

The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host.

VMware is more stable than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V's scalability or stability is okay. The problem is updating the host. Sometimes we have to schedule downtime for the entire machine to boot up, and the Windows update process takes a long time on the loading stream. It causes a lot of downtime for the customers. Hyper-V has more requirements to scale up compared to VMware. 

Only about 15 percent of our customers use Hyper-V. Most use VMware. VMware is much more robust than Hyper-V. If customers need high availability or more stability, we tell them to go with VMware. If cost is an issue, they can opt for the VMware Essentials Kit, which is the cheapest. 

Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system. We can do anything on top of it without any other computer. 

VMware can't do this. You must have a console server, and then you can use the web to enter to the VMware to do the configuration. Hyper-V can still be configured inside the host operating system, which is more convenient.

We don't have a dedicated team just for Hyper-V. We just have a Microsoft support team. This is a Microsoft product.

The time to value for Hyper-V is shorter than VMware because the customer will typically purchase a Windows Server license with the hardware, so it will be faster.

I think Hyper-V is much cheaper for a small or medium-sized business. If the customer is running VMware and using Windows Server, we still have to purchase a Windows Server license plus the VMware license. Hyper-V will be cheaper if it's just a small deployment for one or two virtual machines.

I rate Hyper-V six out of 10. Hyper-V is okay if customers are comfortable with it and don't require high availability. 

Two main x3650M3 servers with 192GB and 96GB RAM. Primary case was Active Directory infrastructure (actually three DC's), file repository, main MS SQL Server and couple of applications servers.

Additionally remote access thru Desktop Services, management (nVision), central AV (ESET), software routers. In short - whole bunch of different servers and different operating systems Windows Server and desktop, different flavours of Linux, even FreeBSD).

Creating virtual machines is really straightforward. Possibility of changing virtual disk size is very helpful. The simplicity of the interface can be confusing because it really provides some advanced options.

I am waiting for improvements in networking and life migration. Some networking settings could be less cryptic.

More than five years.

I have never had any stability problems caused by Hyper-V for over five years.

I am very satisfied with the scalability of Hyper-V. I'm using up to eight virtual machines on single x3650 M3

We previously used VMware, but we switched because Hyper-V is cheaper and delivers the same stability for less money. To be honest for free.

Initial setup was straightforward. It was easy and fast. It took me between a half  to an hour for complete deployment. The most complex part is the networking.

In-house. To be precise by myself.

Licensing is fairly easy because Hyper-V itself is free.

Citrix Xen, but this solution has become too expensive.

The most valuable feature of this is the ability to provide a completely redundant hosted solution to our clients, no matter where they are. We have the ability to load balance a cluster of servers so that resources are evenly spread, providing the best experience. I also like the ability to live migrate machines if we have any issues with a host. The user experiences no degradation.

This solution allows us to use minimal resources to support a large number of clients.

One thing I would love to see with this product is the ability to provide an offline solution. It would be great if someone could do work when no network connection is available, then sync up when a connection is available. I would also like to see better performance with media. Right now, streaming any media within Hyper-V is just not feasible.

We have been using Hyper-V for over eight years now. We are currently using Microsoft Hyper-V 2012 to provide a fully hosted desktop solution for our clients. Our clients access their desktops through a gateway broker.

We do experience some instability with the platform. It usually happens if there is a lot of I/O happening on the volumes that hold the VMs. We also have some issues working with clustered servers not load balancing correctly.

No issues with scalability.

Technical support is 10/10. Well, it’s a Microsoft product, so the level of support has been great.

Before Hyper-V, we used VMware. At the time, VMware was difficult to manage, very expensive and not as reliable.

Hyper-V is very straightforward. It’s really just adding the appropriate roles and licenses to the servers. Once the brokers and gateways are set up, it’s really easy to just add hosting servers and VMs to those hosts.

I wasn’t involved in the pricing or licensing, so I can’t really comment on it.

Before using Hyper-V, we used VMware and Citrix. This solution gave us the most flexibility.

If you are looking for virtual technology, Hyper-V continues to grow and improve. Being a Microsoft product, it’s the most-compatible solution to implement into your environment. It’s also the most cost-effective solution and you really can’t beat Microsoft support.

I'm mostly implementing Hyper-V solutions. Most of my clients are implementing Hyper-V on-premises, and on cloud my clients are using Microsoft Azure.

I am a Microsoft architect. I'm certified in Microsoft. My company is located in Cameroon and many countries in Africa and out of Africa. In my company we are working on Microsoft solutions at 80% on Windows Server, SQL, Exchange, Microsoft for Business, ISO. We are training with these solutions and implementing them.

Most clients are using Microsoft solutions. I prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions. For example, when you have Hyper-V, it doesn't make sense to pay more for another license to buy VMware. For me, it's a waste.

With the Windows data center, I can have an infinite number of virtual machines. In the past, VMware was very important maybe 8 or 10 years ago, but with Hyper-V it has navigation ability and it's integrated with Windows Viptela 16 for free. People want navigation and high availability. All these features are included with Hyper-V for free when you have a license of Windows Server.

For Hyper-V, the copy and paste function could be improved. You cannot continue copying from the host machine to the virtual machine. It's very difficult. You can paste text if you want to extract the command from the virtual machine. You can save the command on the host machine and pass through the main activity to paste the command on the virtual machine. It's good but sometimes when we want to work very quickly, it would help if Microsoft integrated the possibility to paste a file from the host machine to the virtual machine.

The integration tools are sometimes not very smooth. Most clients can't develop it very well because most administrators are working on host machines or from a laptop administering virtual machines. So the administrator working on a laptop  must have the possibility maybe from the host to paste on the virtual machine.

It's very stable. I have never had a problem with Hyper-V's stability.

The solution is scalable because you can migrate the virtual machine for Hyper-V to the cloud easily. Each time they release a new OS, they are adding new features so far it's scalable.

I've never had an issue with Hyper-V where I needed to ask for support. I can resolve most issues myself.

Deployment is very easy. 

It depends, but it can take two or three hours to implement it. If the infrastructure is difficult, it can take one or two days. It depends on the number of virtual machines currently in use.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.