We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Odin Virtuozzo Containers based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."The solution is highly stable."
"II prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"Hyper-V deployment is very user-friendly. It supports partial scripting and offers a UI for a smooth experience. There's also PowerShell scripting available for advanced users."
"It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner."
"The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware."
"The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is the replica service."
"The solution's technical support is the best."
"When you run templates on the containers on Virtuozzo they have a lot of back-ups."
"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."
"We would like to have a cloning function added to this product."
"The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory."
"We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work."
"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."
"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."
"The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago, but I remember it was complicated."
"Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement."
"Odin Virtuozzo has poor support and needs to improve."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Odin Virtuozzo Containers is ranked 11th in Server Virtualization Software with 2 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Odin Virtuozzo Containers is rated 6.0. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Odin Virtuozzo Containers writes "Significant backup for containers, but the customer service is terrible". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE and Oracle VM VirtualBox, whereas Odin Virtuozzo Containers is most compared with Proxmox VE, Nutanix AHV Virtualization, KVM and VMware vSphere.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.