How has it helped my organization?
Just to be able to efficiently utilize our power hardware. Gone are the days of one pizza box for a two-core CPU. You've got dozens of cores in one box, and you can't use them all if you just run one thing on one server, so you've got to virtualize it.
What is most valuable?
The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization.
What needs improvement?
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. But that's going to depend on the bandwidth. You can have an adverse effect as well, if somebody is just using a real small data pipe. Then, they could choke you with Dropbox. They've got to calculate it out.
I didn't give it a 10 out of 10 because sometimes remotely managing it isn't as simple as it could be. Basically, it just involves having to log directly into a box rather than doing something via remote command.
And there's also still a little bit of a learning curve, and as I'm learning additional things with some of the maintenance stuff - then scripting that and automating it - then I won't have to deal with it anymore.
In a way, it's still easier, in my mind, in comparison to when you do have to dig in deep on a VMware box.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Not as of yet. But what's being done is completely unsupported by Dropbox. The way that they view it is just "a file is a file." That's it. So, you synchronize files that are the actual backups - and it's just a file. But using them for a backup solution, they don't support anything other than it being a client application for a user; not as a service or anything else.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Not really, except for when they push out enough data that it requires additional dependencies that they didn't know about. Broke it on a Linux server, but that was just one time.
How is customer service and technical support?
It's the luck of the draw. It's been as low as a three and as high as an eight out of 10.
Which solutions did we use previously?
VMware - the cost. Because Hyper-V is free, and you get a lot of the solutions that you've got to pay tens of thousands of dollars for with VMware. It's free under Microsoft. And they've really polished it in the past two years. It's pretty good.
How was the initial setup?
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I was dropped into it, so I inherited a mostly completed environment, and then I finished it.
They had problems with the VMware running on their servers because they were using unsupported. It was before Dell released firmware for the controllers for the servers to stop complaining. Even though the drives were working fine, the controller was throwing a bunch of errors.
Plus, that version of VMware, at that time, didn't support TRIM, so then it had problems reclaiming space and stuff like that. Then it had to go over to Windows, which under Hyper-V supported TRIM. Now, VMware does support it, so it wouldn't be an issue, but it's already converted over. It's rock solid.
What other advice do I have?
Don't knock Hyper-V until you actually try it.
I get a lot of people from the tech community, saying things like, "Hahaha, you're on Hyper-V?" And I reply, "Yeah. At first, I opposed it, but it's grown on me and I love it." I still run VMware at home, just because I already have it running on in my lab, but if I were to rebuild, I'd do it under Hyper-V. Why not?
You get more features for free.
You've got to actually really try it for a good six months to a year, and then it grows on you. It's like, "Wow! You can do all that?" Yeah. And more.
Hyper-V's gotten a lot better since 2012 and 2012 R2, and now the 2016 is light years again.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Oct 03 2017