Hyper-V Reviews

It is a great advantage for any company that is using a Microsoft Windows server.

I think the console could use some improvement for the backups. The features should be improved. I know a lot of people who are considering moving to Hyper-V, but are skittish to do so because you need a system center virtual manager or a specialist to integrate the solution.

More than five years.

I recommend this product due to its high stability. 

It is highly scalable. It is really easy to scale and implement. 

The setup was easy.

The pricing is competitive, and a bit less than other options on the market.

This is the primary hypervisor in my organization. It runs our most critical workloads and supports all our branch offices.

It comes with all the features and goodies inside the box, so you do not have to purchase anything else. 

The Failover Clustering feature allows us to be able to make our most critical workload highly available. We did not have to pay extra money for it.

In Windows Servers 2016, there is Storage Spaces Direct. Although, it seems as if many of the local organizations where I live prefer to go for traditional SAN setups, I find Storage Spaces Direct to be very attractive, neat, and stable. We did not need to hire a separate storage expert to manage our storage as it was easy to manage and setup (many articles online). We did not have to invest a dollar more than what we paid for the server software. 

I think Microsoft has answered most of the concerns of users with the release of Server 2016. 

Now, they can hot add NICs to the VMs. However, there is still not the ability to hot add virtual processors to running VMs. 

One to three years.

It has helped to keep the cost of IT spending low when compared to the cost of VMware.

Once we bought the datacenter version of the server, we did away with worrying about the cost of licensing our VMs separately.

Great Hypervisor with snapshot capability, and fail over clustering integration. Also possible to manage with Virtual Machine Manager.

P2V are not live, and there's some limitation on max hard drive space for VMs and the ability to recover VHD file space after files within the VM have been deleted.

The proven technological prowess of Microsoft has produced yet another wonder for virtual machines - Hyper-V. The Windows Server 2008 R2 Hypervisor, is indeed a step towards the virtual world. Gone are those days where you start to scratch your head for low disk space and complicated hardware and networking solutions. The excellent features included in Hyper-V are dynamic memory management, better end user virtual performance, 3D Graphics enhancements, and good quality of media streaming. There is a significant change in Hyper-V for Live migration. This is a step taken by Microsoft to give tough competition to VMWare. Hyper-V with its 64 logical processors has got a new edge in its VM performances. There is a quantum change in previous releases of Hyper-V that is better in SP1 than in SP2.

To optimize the performance of your desktops and servers, you need to install extra RAM and multiprocessors to use Hyper-V. Hyper-V is useful for X64 platforms. VMware has got the edge over Hyper-V in the case of X86 platforms. The latest release of Hyper-V has got better scalability than its previous one. Hyper-V lags in the case of Maximum VM RAM (64GB), where VMware provides 255GB VM RAM. In its earlier version it has got also a smaller number of nodes that can be added in a single cluster which is 16. The number is 32 in the case of VMware.

Microsoft with its better reach and excellent customer support is always a preferable choice. Although VMware may still be leading the enterprise market, there is neck to neck competition between Hyper-V and VMware. Moreover, in its latest version, Hyper-V has enhanced some excellent features, like additional capability of Memory for VM, running up to 1TB. It has also increased the single VM RAM capacity up to 64GB. There is also an enhancement of 160 logical processors per Hyper-V host, 1024 virtual machines per host, 64 nodes per cluster, 4000 virtual machines per cluster, and 32 virtual processors.

The reason we use this solution is because we can do a lot more with rate configurations, and large span networks. It's a lot easier doing that versus with some of the KVM based hypervisors.

We use it for testing new software. We especially use it for software updates because half of the time we're running an accounting program. It updates, and then breaks something else. This way we can run a couple of different VM's with a setup similar to what we use on all of the desktops. So, that way, you can test it without actually causing downtime.

Some of the things we run have to have a very specific Linux bistro, and you can't get it
all in Hyper-V.

I find the ease of use the most valuable asset of the solution.

An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems.

One to three years.

It is a very stable product.

We previously used a Linux KVM based hypervisor called Proxmox.

The pricing isn't too bad, because you can do the bare metal hyper-visor, and it is pretty fair. Other competitors are more expensive.

Make sure to do your research before you choose a solution. Be sure it fits your needs. 

We built a private cloud with it.

Live migration, SMB3.

Storage via SMB3.

Yes.

No.

6

Previously used VMware. Switched due to cost.

It was reasonably straightforward.

It's cheap, but not the best.

Vmware was better, but it was more expensive.

Don’t use it for mission critical clouds.