Chief Technology Officer at a healthcare company with 501-1,000 employees

Jan 17, 2019

Download

Low price for a hyper-virtualized environment

Pros and Cons

"It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner."

"Microsoft tech support is horrible."

What is our primary use case?

I use this solution for some of my virtual machines.

How has it helped my organization?

It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner.

What is most valuable?

I find the hardware and the cost reduction most valuable.

What needs improvement?

The backup has room for improvement.

Buyer's Guide

Hyper-V

May 2024

Free Report: Hyper-V Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about Hyper-V. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: May 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

772,679 professionals have used our research since 2012.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is a pretty stable solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I have not scaled it because I am not running it in a cluster environment anymore. I do know that the clusters work and that Hyper-V can easily scale for an organization's greater needs.

How are customer service and support?

Microsoft tech support is horrible.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. It took a day to deploy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The Hyper-V pricing and licensing are very good.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I looked at Hyper-V vs AHV, which is a Nutanix product. Nutanix Acropolis is a hyperconverged product that does a lot of next-level type of virtualization software.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

YaoAyivor

CTO for Pydynamix

Jan 17, 2019

Download

There is a tremendous ease of use due to the familiarity with Microsoft.

Pros and Cons

"The flexibility and API are the most valuable features. It helps us be able to integrate with other systems and then push data easily."

"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."

How has it helped my organization?

There is an ease of use, and it is able to deploy it because there are people throughout my country of South Africa that all understand Microsoft. They can easily fire up a virtual environment because they are familiar with Microsoft.

What is most valuable?

The flexibility and API are the most valuable features. It helps us be able to integrate with other systems and then push data easily. It has 100% functionality and speed.

What needs improvement?

The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement.

Some customers have been complaining of running into Immobility Licensing Restrictions. They were running on an ELA, and there was no flexibility with a volume license agreement.

In addition, it would be nice to have the ability to assign more dynamically, like VM-ware does. Furthermore, it would be nice to return the SRM feature back into Hyper-V so that you're not looking at a virtual box which is a cheap version, but that you're looking at enterprise, you're looking at VM-ware. If this could be placed into a one-button feature, that would be very attractive.

For how long have I used the solution?

One to three years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable. For me, it's all about getting the right architecture approval before even looking at Hyper-V layer and then virtualizing where we can, but if not, we go physical. At the same time, it'll all be on a Microsoft platform, hence why I have Hyper-V.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was complex. When compared to firing up a virtual box, there are too many prompts.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is not an issue for us because we have a licensing agreement with Microsoft. So we are given an 80% discount.

What other advice do I have?

If I was going to a demo, and somebody had given me an iPhone and I had to quickly gut it, my first choice would not be Hyper-V. It is not a user-friendly solution.

I would say the ability to assign more dynamically, like VM-ware does. And the SRM feature to be brought back into Hyper-V so that you're not looking at virtual box which is a cheap version, but that you're looking at enterprise, you're looking at VM-ware. But if there was one button to move everything over to the new system, if that could be put in as a feature
then it would be very attractive.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

Buyer's Guide

Hyper-V

May 2024

Free Report: Hyper-V Reviews and More

Learn what your peers think about Hyper-V. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: May 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

772,679 professionals have used our research since 2012.

it_user92241

IT Manager with 51-200 employees

Apr 27, 2014

Virtual Networking: VMware vs. Hyper-V

We've been busy building out our new Server 2012/Hyper-V infrastructure in support of our move to all new and shiny Exchange 2013, SharePoint 2013, Lync 2013 and Office 2013 along with our move to Windows 8 on all the client machines. We made the decision to move off VMware ESXi as our virtualization platform and onto Hyper-V as we are first and foremost a Microsoft shop. Server 2012 and Hyper-V now offer a compelling platform for virtualization and, frankly, if we can do what we want to do with products from one vendor rather than multiple vendors then so much the better. Hyper-V is no longer a poor relation to VMware in terms of performance or capabilities and, believe me, I was the most “dyed in the wool” rabid VMware user for many years so I’m not saying this just to toe the company line. I firmly believe that it’s now pretty much a level playing field between VMware and Microsoft.

During our migration we have been learning about the subtle differences between the two platforms and have had to adjust our thinking accordingly. Virtual networking, and specifically “virtual switches”, is one area where we have had to really make a conscious effort to adjust how we look at things and how we configure things. Let me explain …

In both VMware and Hyper-V you have to deal with virtual switching to “bridge” the virtual machines hosted on a virtualization host to your physical network. Both platforms allow you to create virtual switches that act pretty much the same a physical layer 2 switches and both platforms require you to create at least one virtual switch before VM’s can be connected to the outside world. But while the overall concept is the same the execution varies rather a lot between the two platforms.

VMware Virtual Switch

In VMware I can create a virtual switch and attach one or more physical NIC’s to the switch. If I create a virtual switch with 2 NIC’s then the switch would have theoretical throughput of 2Gbps assuming both underlying physical NIC’s were gigabit. When I attach VM’s to the switch the VM’s would route traffic over both NIC’s (in theory). I know in practice that traffic might “ping pong” across the NIC’s as they aren’t actually teamed together (bonded) but the point is the switch provides “bigger” bandwidth than a switch with only one NIC attached. (You can bond NIC’s for switches but that is beyond the scope of this blog.) Think of the switch as providing “load balancing” across the attached NIC’s as well as a certain amount of redundancy as the switch (and the attached VM’s) can survive a component NIC failure and keep connectivity in place. Our VMware configs usually had a couple of switches configured, each with a couple of NIC’s, and each switch would support multiple VM’s. VMware virtual switches normally do NOT have an IP assigned to the switch as underlying VMware doesn’t attempt to bind an IP to the physical NIC.

Here is the list of physical NIC’s in my lab ESXi box, one NIC is currently connected to the physical network:

And here is the current switch configuration:

In this case the switch is the default one created at installation time. It includes the single cabled NIC I have in place right now. Note that there are actually two networks configured – VM Network and Management Network. The Management Network actually has an IP address assigned as that is the IP address for the VMware host itself. In many cases when a VMware host has many NIC’s the Management Network might have a NIC all to itself. The VM Network provides switch connectivity to the VM’s attached to it and an IP address is NOT assigned to the network. Note: as there is only one NIC assigned to the switch connectivity to both the host and the VM’s would be lost if the NIC failed or was disconnected from the network.

As you can see I have now added a second virtual switch (it has a NIC that is NOT cabled in to the physical network at this point). I have removed the VM Network from the first virtual switch (vSwitch0) and added a new network, VM Network 2, to the second virtual switch (vSwitch1). Now I have completely segmented my management network (physical host access) from my virtual machine network (virtual machine access). In this case the host would be accessible from the physical network as its switch (vSwitch0) has an operational NIC attached. The Server 2012 VM on vSwitch1 would NOT be accessible from the physical network as its switch does not have an operational (cabled in) NIC attached.

And now I have removed the second virtual switch, added the second NIC to the first virtual switch and moved the Server 2012 VM back on to the VM Network on the switch. In this case both the host and the VM would be accessible from the physical network as the switch has at least one operational NIC attached to it.

VMware virtual switching is pretty configurable and elastic.

Hyper-V Virtual Switch

Hyper-V virtual switches do NOT have the same ability to bind multiple NIC’s into a switch config, at least not at the virtual switch level. Traditional Hyper-V “external switches” work on the paradigm of one physical host NIC being bound to the switch. If you have a server with a whole bunch of NIC’s then you would need to create a virtual switch for each NIC that you want to use with Hyper-V. Each switch can support multiple VM’s attached to it, just like VMware, but each switch can only have the one physical NIC bound to it.

With the advent of Server2012 and Hyper-V 3 the single NIC constraint can be circumvented by TEAMING NIC’s at the Server 2012 level through Server Manager. The resulting tNIC can then be selected as the “NIC” for a Hyper-V virtual switch and the virtual switch would then have the aggregated bandwidth of the underlying NIC’s. The caveat here is that the PHYSICAL SWITCH on the other end of the cables from the NIC’s has to also allow for port teaming either via a manual set up or via LACP.

The other thing to understand is that the virtual switch will “take over” most of the characteristics of the NIC/tNIC assigned to it. That means the virtual switch will take on the IP address – DHCP or STATIC – of the underlying NIC as the NIC is just a NIC to the Windows Server host. This is very important to understand when you are setting up Hyper-V, specially so on a single NIC server.

Here is the adapter configuration on my lab Hyper-V server:

This is pretty similar to my VMware server, I have two physical NIC’s but only one is actually cabled into the physical network at this time. You’ll also note the “vEthernet” connection, this is the single Hyper-V virtual switch that has been created on this box.

In the Hyper-V Manager on the server I see the following for the virtual switch config:

This is the switch that I created to support my first Hyper-V VM’s. It is created as an “External Network” which means that it provides connectivity between the attached VM’s and the physical network beyond the Hyper-V host. And, importantly, it is set to, “Allow management operating system to share the network adapter”. This is critical in a single NIC server or, as in my case, when there is only one connected NIC on a multi-NIC machine. This setting is analogous to the VMware “Management Network” in that it is what allows the Server 2012 host to “share” the NIC with the Hyper-V guests attached to the switch. If I had created this switch and NOT selected this setting I would have ended up NOT being able to access the HOST over the network as the switch would NOT share the NIC between the VM’s and the host (single operational NIC, remember?). When this setting is selected, the switch will take on many of the characteristics of the underlying NIC including its network address settings (DHCP or Static); therefore, the switch will bind itself to the IP assigned to the HOST.

This is a really important concept to grasp because I cannot create a switch and assign multiple NIC’s to it (as mentioned previously). If I have a server with a bunch of NIC’s and I go and create one virtual switch per physical NIC AND I select the “Allow management setting …” then I will be binding multiple IP addresses to my host and that is probably not what I want to do. In our office our sysadmin, Louis, was wondering why all of a sudden the Hyper-V host had pulled a bunch of DHCP addresses; the answer was he created a bunch of switches all of which had management turned on which, in turn, required an IP and the default setting is DHCP.

Note that the switch IP, if there is one, has no bearing on the IP’s assigned to the VM’s nor do the VM’s require the switch to have an assigned IP. If a switch has an IP then it is there strictly to provide connectivity passthrough to the host.

As you might imagine, it is not as easy to configure Hyper-V virtual networking to be as “elastic” as VMware virtual networking, VMware still outshines Microsoft in this regard. You CAN use NIC teaming at the Server 2012 level to create tNIC’s (teamed NIC’s) that can then be incorporated into Hyper-V virtual switches but there are caveats that have to be met. Your physical switches must “understand” how you have teamed the NIC’s and be configured (or configure themselves) accordingly. Also, depending on how the NIC’s are teamed there is the possibility of tNIC failure if an underlying teamed NIC fails. If a tNIC in a Hyper-V switch fails then the switch itself will fail. This is very different behaviour from that of the VMware virtual switching that I have discussed and it is something you need to understand as you move from VMware to Hyper-V.

Conclusion

VMware still has the edge on Microsoft when it comes to simple virtual switching (and simple is what we deal with in the SMB world). But the edge is slim and Hyper-V does offer real value and a compelling use argument. Like anything else in IT, you need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the products you select and design your environment accordingly. I hope this discussion of VMware and Hyper-V virtual switching will help you in your endeavours.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user250662Works

Report as inappropriate

Jun 5, 2015

I am not sure about the last statement as even with VMWare you still need to go in and configure multiple NIC's on one switch for LACP, Active Passive, IP Hash, MAC Hash....... the only difference I can see is where the linking of the NIC's happens. Microsoft is before adding the Virtual NIC to the Switch, VMWare is after the switch is created and addition NIC's are added

Saad Khoudali

System Administrator at Confidential

Sep 25, 2022

Download

A good visualization tool with a range of license options, but lacking in cloning functionality

Pros and Cons

"We appreciate how easy this solution is to implement on standalone severs."

"We would like to have a cloning function added to this product."

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution to provide visualization for our two main server clusters; one that hosts most of our production virtual machines, and another that hosts Active Directory and the Exchange platforms.

What is most valuable?

We appreciate how easy this solution is to implement on standalone severs.

Some of the license options available with this product allow for upgrades to be carried out without having to incur extra charges.

What needs improvement?

We would like to have a cloning function added to this product.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solution for six years, and are using the 2012 R2 release version.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have found this solution to be quite stable in our experience.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This solution is scalable if the new server, or new node, is prepared identically to the existing cluster that it will be added to. The product also requires the same user accounts and service accounts that exist currently to be created, and for some shared storage to be in use.

How are customer service and support?

The support for this solution is mostly good; they are reactive and always solve small issues. However, we have had some problems with more complicated issues taking a long time to be fixed.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of this solution on a standalone server is quite straightforward. However, if you want to create a cluster of hosts, then you have to configure a large number of requirements and liaise with a lot of different systems teams, which makes it challenging.

What about the implementation team?

This solution was implemented using a team provided by our third-party reseller.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one.

What other advice do I have?

We would recommend that any organization considering this solution looks at the range of software they are currently running, to ensure complete compatibility and allow for easy migration to this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

Sajith Kalinga

Senior System Engineer at avian Technologies (pvt) ltd

Aug 16, 2021

Download

A virtualization solution with many useful features, but It would be better if it demanded less memory

Pros and Cons

"I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful."

"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."

What is most valuable?

I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Hyper-V for more than five years.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support with Microsoft is crazy because we never get it. If I'm having some issues with Microsoft, opening up a ticket is very difficult even though we have it in Sri Lanka. Even from there, we cannot get the technical support for the marketing stuff. They will give us support, but it's not easy to open up a ticket and get that technical support for the technical stuff. Right now, the best support we can get is from Google.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

You can easily use Hyper-V coercion, and It's very good. Hyper-V is good when compared to VMI. It's not easy, but they have so many features, and backing up features and migrations and networking are much easier.

What other advice do I have?

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

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner

Reviewer4901

IT Executive at a transportation company with 501-1,000 employees

Dec 13, 2018

Download

Previously we had five machines running the infrastructure. With Hyper-V, now we have one.

Pros and Cons

"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."

"It might make it easier to move VMs across Hotmail hosts. This application process make it a little bit easier."

How has it helped my organization?

It makes it easier to deploy services. All services tend to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent.

What is most valuable?

We find the most valuable feature is just hosting the VM. The replication I do with other software.

What needs improvement?

It might make it easier to move VMs across Hotmail hosts. This application process may make it a little bit easier.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have not had problems with the stability of the solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I am using the free version of the solution. There are some limited features, and it is not too scalable. But, I am sure the full version is much better for scaling.

We have plans to migrate to the full version in the future, as we have a greater need for usage.

How is customer service and technical support?

I never had the need to contact technical support.

How was the initial setup?

It was a straightforward setup. The deployment basically took two days. We prepared the hosts, migrated to the new hosts, turned off the old hardware and then we had one machine with all of the servers running. Previously we had five machines running the infrastructure, and now we have one.

What was our ROI?

Hyper-V is free in my case, and by purchasing Windows servers 2019, Hyper-V is already included. It provides the same operating systems for competitors that charge a lot more for the same results.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I use the free version of Hyper-V.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

VMware has a comparable solution, but their price is too expensive for my needs.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user6186

Independent Analyst and Advisory Consultant at Server StorageIO - www.storageio.com

Jan 4, 2017

Review about Microsoft Hyper-V

Happy 20th Birthday Windows Server, ready for Server 2016?

In case you have not heard, is celebrating the 20th birthday (or anniversary) of Windows Server.

has a nice site with info graphics and timelines of where Windows Server has been and accomplished over the past 20 years.

Some of you may remember from 20 years ago Windows Server with a different name aka Windows NT Server. Back in the day, if you recall (or read), server requirements were more in the 33 MHz vs. 3.3GHz range, 32MB of RAM Memory vs. 32GB to 320GB, 150MB HDD vs. 150GB SSD or 1.5TB HDD.

Keep in mind that 20 years ago Linux was a relative new thing with Red Hat not yet quite household or more specific enterprise name. The various Unix (e.g. IBM AIX, HP HP-UX, Sun Solaris, DEC Unix and Ultrix among many others) were still dominate, OS2 had peaked or close to, among others. Virtual Machines were Logical Partitions (LPAR) on Mainframes along with virtual PCs software and hardware assist boards.
IMHO there is no coincidence of Microsoft celebrating 20 years of WIndows Server going into the fall of 2016 and the upcoming release of .

What’s New in Server 2016 (TP5)?

If you have not done so, check out the latest Tech Preview 5 (TP5) of Windows (get the bits e.g. software here to try) which includes Storage Spaces Direct (S2D) that leverages internal PCIe and drive formatSSD (NVMe, SAS, SATA) along with HDDs (SAS, SATA) for creating local and scale-out converged (desegregated) and hyper-converged (aggregated) solutions. In addition to S2D there is Storage Replica (SR) which is replication of local storage part of S2D (not to be confused with DFS or other replication).

Other enhancements include ReFS as the default file system instead of NTFS (don’t worry, NTFS like FAT does not go away yet). There are enhancements to Hyper-V including VM shielding, hot-plug virtual network adapters, enhanced Linux support and fail over priorities among others. Other enhancements include updates for AD including improved integration with on-premise as well as Azure AD for hybrid environments, PowerShell updates, Docker management including Linux (via Hyper-V) and Windows via Nano) container engines.

Speaking of Nano, if you had not heard, this is a new very light weight Windows Kernel that removes 32 bit WOW and GUI support. The result is that Nano is a very small physical (under 1GB image instance size) using less disk, less memory and less CPU to do a given amount of work, oh, and boots super fast, even without SSD. By not having all the 32 bit and GUI overhead, the intent with Nano is there should be fewer updates and maintenance tasks to do, while enabling Windows containers for SQL Server and other applications.

In addition to PowerShell, AD and other management enhancements, Windows Server 2016 (TP5) also enables bridging two worlds e.g. traditional on-premise (or cloud) based Windows Server and Public Cloud (e.g. Azure) and Private or Hybrid including Azure Stack. Note that if you have not heard of Azure Stack and are looking at cloud stacks such as OpenStack, do your due diligence and at least familiarize yourself with Azure Stack.

View more about WIndows 2016 TP5 enhancements here.

Where To Learn More

Check out the Microsoft 20 years of Windows Server site here
Learn about the upcoming next version of Windows Server 2016 here
Get the Windows Server 2016 Tech Preview 5 (TP5) bits here
Cloud Storage Decision Making (looking at Microsoft Azure)
Cloud Storage Considerations (looking at Microsoft Azure)
Learn more about HDDs here, NVM and SSDs at www.thenvmeplace.com and www.thessdplace.com
Server Storage I/O performance and related tools page
Overview Review of Microsoft ReFS (Reliable File System) and resource links

What This All Means

Congratulations Microsoft and Windows Server on 20th birthday (anniversary) you have come a long way.

With the new features and functionality in Windows Server 2016, looks like there is still a good future for the software defined server.

Read more here including how to get the 2016 TP5 bits to try yourself.

Ok, nuff said, for now… cheers GS

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

it_user79785

Director of IT with 51-200 employees

Jan 19, 2014

Download

Replica, Cost and Stability are very valuable but support has only been average - has proven to be hit-or-miss

What is most valuable?

There are a few features that make the product stand out:

Replica: We have Replica running in our NY & London datacenters and can (and on a couple of occasions, have) fail over servers quickly and cleanly. Failback also worked like a charm.
Cost: It’s no secret that H-V is much less expensive than VMware; we are saving many thousands a year in licensing & support. It also sets up for future costs savings as the business grows.
Stability: Since we implemented the H-V solution we have reported outstanding uptimes.

How has it helped my organization?

The prime example is the simplicity and cost savings of our new DR/BCP solution. By consolidating our two disparate corporate AD2008/VMWare domains into a single Hyper-V/AD 2012 domain we have:

Drastically reduced the complexity of the environment. NO more kludges or 3rd-party software to get systems like Exchange, Lync or AD Users conversing seamlessly.
About $150K a year in colocation costs. With our private cloud we have a built-in DR/BCP solution on existing infrastructure, no need to farm out to a colo provider.

What needs improvement?

To be determine – we will be conducting a review of the R2 release in the second quarter of 2014.

For how long have I used the solution?

We’ve had the system in place since January 2013 and it went into full production in May 2013.

What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

Not outside the usual challenges in learning a new application. We had 4 months to design, install and run the new domain in parallel to former environments.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Outside of needing to keep the VM hosts patched (we did have an issue with a driver related to storage), no.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Zero – we have a pretty robust infrastructure in place for the number of staff. Clustered DL385’s & EMC VNXe at each datacenter will allow us to scale out and up easily (we are using around 12% of capacity on the VNXe and can drop additional servers into the cluster if there’s a spike in use or we make acquisitions).

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service: Good.Technical Support: Average. I say that as my experience with MSFT Support in general has proven to be hit-or-miss with the first-level support. The second-level support is much better and I haven’t had to go beyond them for solutions.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We had VMware/AD 2008 in place at the two companies; the US infrastructure was already built out with SAN and meshed networking so we had to play catch-up with the UK datacenter. The switch was made at the behest of the group CEO – what the boss wants the boss gets!

How was the initial setup?

Pretty straightforward without any major surprises. The online documentation written up by MSFT and the legion of fans proved to be invaluable. The setup of Replica proved to be very easy.

What about the implementation team?

Implementation was done mostly by in-house staff (2 of us) and we needed a hand from a VAR for some of the clustering setup.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Between the additional hardware/software and consultant costs we spent around $80K.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

No – we felt the two best solutions were VMware & MSFT as we had been using VMware and had many years of experience with MSFT products.

What other advice do I have?

Do not be afraid to work $$$ into the budget in case you need assistance from a 3rd-party.
Test in parallel and do not be a hero and try to do it whole-hog at once.
Do not postpone the DR/BCP part of the project. If you are building out a new infrastructure DO THIS FIRST. We were forced to push this to the back of the project and it bit us for a few days; in the end you do what the executives say but having file/application/server/site disaster recovery is an absolute must before you migrate production data.
If you haven’t gone too far with it do a review of R2; it provides many improvements in the VM & Replica features.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.