Hyper-V definitely has its pro's, some of which are painfully apparent.- The first one is that it is a Microsoft product, which is baked into its Server 2008 and 2008 R2 platforms. You also have the option of a Hyper-V server core, which is only the Hypervisor (this allows for more resources to be dedicated to the individual VM's). - It has Powershell scripting support built in and also excellent Virtual Networking technology.- The VM's are portable. That means that each VM is stored in a single VHD file, which can be transferred to another server and configured and ready to run in less than a minute.- It fully integrates into the Windows environment, allowing access via MMC consoles to change settings and create/administer virtual machines remotely.
Room for Improvement:
The only cons I can really think of are as follows:- Individual licensing costs for each server.
- If you aren't using Hyper-V Core and are running Hyper-V on top of the full Server 2008 R2 platform, then you have less resources to allocate to your Virtual Machines.
- Except through RDP, there is no way to access the VM's on alternative platforms (like Mac or Linux).I use Hyper-V almost exclusively for all my virtualization needs. From a Network Administrators viewpoint, specifically one catering to a Windows client base, there is no better choice than Hyper-V. Like I said before, it fully integrates into the Windows environment, allowing access via MMC consoles to change settings and create/administer virtual machines remotely.
All in all, Microsoft Hyper-V is an excellent platform and a great competitor for VMWare.