Hyper-V Reviews

We primarily use this solution as a hypervisor.

They could turn it into a product because that's the problem with it. It doesn't have a single place where you can manage things. You have to go into all different screens to be able to configure it. It is hard to track what the performance is. It's really just a feature added to Windows, and Microsoft does not really have anything that pulls it all together well. Compared to VMware, it does not have everything collaborate on one screen.

In addition, the solution needs better ability to do backups. 

Once it is setup, there is no problem.

It is a hypervisor, so if you had more servers, you get more scale.

The initial setup is not straightforward, it is a bunch of Microsoft parts that you have to arrange yourself. You have to set up the networking so that you have redundancy. You then have to go in, cluster two Windows servers, which is not so easy. The Hyper-V becomes simple, but it does not happen if the other things are not properly configured.

It takes roughly four hours to install. 

There is no ROI for us, because it is a free product.

It is free for us so that was a prime factor for choosing this solution.

We are currently seriously considering migrating to VMware solutions.

It is good for small installations. If you are looking to do anything fancy, this is is not a good choice.

My primary use case is for virtualization of all solutions from physical servers into other solutions for ease of management. 

With the virtualization  what we could achieve was maximum utilization of our resources. Previously we used to like have ten, fifteen physical service each one was utilized for a certain percentage and uh, not everything was utilized. I mean one service was maybe 20% utilization one was 90% utilization. So, there was no balance of utilization. With virtualization we can balance. In addition, we can be accurate at the with the solution or Hyper-V, this gives us a close decision I can move motion machines live from one physical machine to another.

I am able to give end users better performance and better response time and better availability.

The the only challenge for us was moving existing physical machines to virtual machines. The time taken was to migrate the physical machine to the virtual machine took about two months.

With each update, the security of this solution just gets better and better. It is very stable.

We have 250 employees and current users at any given point of time using this solution. One infrastructure has an ARCo database. Another has a Si database. The applications have a site exchange between them.

We have two employees who maintain deployment and management of the solution. One handles the database, and the other handles the application. We plan to scale to more users in the future.

The time taken for integration was to migrate the physical machine to the virtual machine. We had to do this one by one.

The set up was very straightforward, you just follow the procedure, the documentation, and it is a breeze.

We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product.

I think that Hyper-V stands in the same ranking as VMware or Oracle in terms of solutions for similar needs.

If you want to use a solution that does the job that is required, to the best of its ability, then Hyper-V is a great solution.

They need to make the initial configuration more straightforward, as the networking part is confusing.

I've used it for three years.

I find out that for smaller shops, that have under 50VMs with a 1gb network, you don't need separate iSCSI traffic for your data. I know that all the best practices tell you to separate the traffic, but what I am seeing, is a much better Hyper-V performance if you keep ISCSI traffic with your data traffic. If you can use CIFS instead of the iSCSI, go with CIFS, HyperV loves CIFS.

We did have problems, and you need to make sure that the LUNs have enough space. If you run out of space, you will need to spend a few hours to bring the VMs up.

If you know what you are doing, you can automate the deployment of a new Hyper-V host with a PXE boot and VMM.

5/10.

It's 5/10 as it is like a lotto, you never know who you will get on other side. Sometimes you get an expert, and sometimes you get a beginner.

We previously used VMware. The primary reason to switch to Hyper-V was the cost, as Hyper-V is for free.

The networking part is confusing for the beginners

We did it in-house.

Hyper-V is free, however if you build clusters, you should get a manager to centralize the management. If you are big enough and you have some money, I strongly recommend System Center, which includes VMM and other great tools like Orchestrator. You can automate building your VMs and even your application tiers. Also with VMM, you can automate spinning up new Hyper-V hosts with PXE boot. I configured, I used it, and it works perfectly.

If you are small shop go with a third party Hyper-V manager like 5nine. It is cheap, they even have a free version, and also a converter from VMware is free. I am using it right now and it works great. It includes alerting.

If for some reason you cant get either, you can manage your clusters directly from fail over cluster manager. It is just more manual work than with the tools above.

For the cost, it has almost the same features as VMware. If you are a Microsoft shop, then get Hyper-V with System Center to connect to Windows Azure and you are all set.

I use the solution for Jira visualization and Jira workload.

The solution is very user-friendly. Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, it is really easy to use and doesn't cost us much.

The feature of native integration with Azure is good.

The solution should improve its native integration with other public cloud solutions.

I have been using the solution for the past 10-15 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. However, we do not have a big cluster. At the moment, we do not have any plans to increase the usage of the solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We did not have any issues at all.

We get ROI on the product.

Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.

If someone plans to implement Hyper-V, they should seek an agreement with Microsoft to get a better value for the product. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use it personally for training. I do some testing for myself. I use it for virtualization and have used it to compare testing functionality. 

It has not helped my organization. I just use it for testing.

The solution works well on Windows.

The product, overall, works well. 

I like the functionality. Users can use it in a hybrid scenario.

The virtualization capabilities are good.

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.

I have some experience with the solution, however, I haven't used it for too long. I've used it for the last 12 months, at least. I might have used it for six months in total. 

I'm not sure which version I'm using. It was the basic setup on the 2016 servers.

I use the solution for my personal projects. 

Our organization is a financial institution in the banking industry. We use Hyper-V for network virtualization and storage and application virtualization. There are five or six users of the solution.

The most valuable feature of the solution is storage virtualization.

Hyper-V has limitations. When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention. 

In the next release, I would like to see virtualization replication added.

I have been using Hyper-V for five years.

Hyper-V is scalable.

Customer support for Hyper-V is good. I would rate the support a four out of five.

Positive

No setup of Hyper-V is required. It is a feature of Windows Server 2016 and 2012. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization.

Hyper-V has improved our organization by enabling consolidation, high availability, disaster recovery, backups, and more. It makes it all simple.

I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center.

Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. Performance can also be better.

We used Hyper-V from 2008 to 2019.

Hyper-V is a stable solution.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. 

I haven't used Microsoft's technical support much.

We have used Citrix and VMware. I would say VMware is simpler for the deployment side of it. Hyper-V is also easy to deploy, but you need to set it up as a role.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. The deployment time depends on the hardware. It can take anywhere from 20 minutes to half an hour. One engineer can implement, manage, and maintain this solution.

It's free with a Windows license, but you can say that there is an ROI in separating workloads.

Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.

I would recommend Hyper-V for small-scale users with one or two VMs. 

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