Hyper-V Reviews

The product is easy to manage. It improves our VM management. 

The solution should be compatible with different systems. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Hyper-V's scalability is good. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has two users. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward. We have five resources to manage its deployment and maintenance. 

Hyper-V's deployment is in-house. 

The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual. 

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. 

I use the solution for Jira visualization and Jira workload.

The solution is very user-friendly. Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, it is really easy to use and doesn't cost us much.

The feature of native integration with Azure is good.

The solution should improve its native integration with other public cloud solutions.

I have been using the solution for the past 10-15 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. However, we do not have a big cluster. At the moment, we do not have any plans to increase the usage of the solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We did not have any issues at all.

We get ROI on the product.

Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.

If someone plans to implement Hyper-V, they should seek an agreement with Microsoft to get a better value for the product. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for test virtualization.

We used this product for our virtualization environment.

One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use.

We would like it to migrate virtual machines without interruptions.

I have been using this solution for five years.

The solution needs to improve the stability.

Hyper-V can scale well.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster.

Neutral

The installation was not easy and it took approximately two days.

We needed to have a consultant for the implementation. We have two administrators and one manager that does the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

I work in an environment where we are required to use them, as well as for DevOps and a few other things like Helios and similar things. As a result, I use it for DevOps testing, infrastructure, and implementation within the product areas of my clients.

The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features.

The WSUS could stand to improve a little bit. It is also foggy at times. Again, I use a wide variety of products and services, but going through each one would take much longer, but WSUS is an awesome Microsoft product that could use some improvement in terms of reporting tools and such. Even the additions and servers work is more difficult. Even the manual add is difficult, and reporting occasionally breaks into the endpoints, but that could be one to five servers when I'm checking a hundred to 200 servers.  I suppose it's insignificant, but when it causes problems with those minor details, it can be difficult. But, aside from that, it works well.

It does what it needs to do and is adequate for the time being. It completes tasks such as replication cycles and other similar tasks. That's probably the only way it can be. In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication. If it could have been a simpler process, or if there was another way they could have done it, it would be beneficial. For example, if I'm doing site-to-site replication, I would normally have to do that in terms of bandwidth; Cisco has some, and they have some different tools that would enable the packages to be smaller and faster, but maybe just Microsoft takes a while to do the site-to-site replication.

I have been working with Hyper-V for approximately 15 years.

This solution is used by 10 administrators, and the product itself has 500,000, or 600,000 users.

We have pretty good in-house expertise, we haven't needed to reach out for actual technical support.

I test products ranging from VOIP to Microsoft to virtualization, VMware, and Hyper-V. I am always testing products and then deciding whether to put them into production for use or scale operations.

In the last year, I would say it has been a voice over IP products as well as a couple of SBC products. This is also true for VM testing and Microsoft products, such as Hyper-V, and a couple of software for voice over IP integration.

Microsoft, as well as perhaps eight or nine others.

I also work with DevOps.

We haven't used the VMware solution to its full potential, and the reason for that is that the software that is currently used on that platform lacks certain features that would allow us to use VMware to its full potential, but it resides on the VMware platform.

In order to obtain the products, we must go through a third-party vendor. We can't go directly to Microsoft.

I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

Hyper-V is used to virtualize machines. You install the latest version of Microsoft Windows Server on your hardware, and you install Hyper-V in the Microsoft Windows Server. You can now install multiple virtual servers within Hyper-V. They all can have different functionality.

The servers can be used for many things, such as file servers, ERPs, and web servers. All of this was not available before the advent of virtualization. With virtualization it's easy with one hardware machine, you can have several servers.

Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 20 years.

Hyper-V is a stable solution, but not as stable as VMware.

The solution has good scalability.

The server is accessible to all the users that need to have access to the network resources.

The in-house Microsoft specialists will attempt to resolve any issues we are facing and if they are not able to do it, we escalate to the head office. If the head office is not able to do assist with a resolution, then they escalate to Microsoft for the final support. The Microsoft support has been very good and this is why we are still with Microsoft.

I have previously used VMware. 

VMware may be a better solution than Hyper-V because Hyper-V is a bit more sophisticated and complex. VMware is not as complex. However, the best option depends on the company and what the business wants. That's what we determine, what is best for us. We are using Hyper-V because we do not need to get a separate license in our Microsoft system.

The implementation of Hyper-V is more difficult than VMware.

The deployment time depends on the number of servers you have in total but to deploy one of the servers, would take approximately 15 minutes. You have to, first of all, start with the installation of the server, and do all the conversion. It could take you close to four hours, depending on the speed of the machine.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We have certified Microsoft specialists as part of our team. If you did not have them we would use an outsourced implementation.

In Nigeria, we have three to four people managing the solution, but in other places, the number could be different. For example, in Ghana, we have five managing the solution. 

There is a license to use this solution and it is an annual purchase.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

We usually use Microsoft Hyper-V for very small customers that don't have the budget for another library or hypervisor. We use Hyper-V when the customer has only one or two virtual machines. It's typically bundled with the Windows Server operating system, so we can provide virtual machines for free. 

In Malaysia, we started the cloud journey in 2020. Most people were looking for services, and many customers wanted to migrate to the cloud immediately. They just look forward and make some comparisons. If you say, "I want to migrate to a cloud," typically, our customers will ask for AWS as a primary choice, followed by Microsoft Azure.

The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host.

VMware is more stable than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V's scalability or stability is okay. The problem is updating the host. Sometimes we have to schedule downtime for the entire machine to boot up, and the Windows update process takes a long time on the loading stream. It causes a lot of downtime for the customers. Hyper-V has more requirements to scale up compared to VMware. 

Only about 15 percent of our customers use Hyper-V. Most use VMware. VMware is much more robust than Hyper-V. If customers need high availability or more stability, we tell them to go with VMware. If cost is an issue, they can opt for the VMware Essentials Kit, which is the cheapest. 

Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system. We can do anything on top of it without any other computer. 

VMware can't do this. You must have a console server, and then you can use the web to enter to the VMware to do the configuration. Hyper-V can still be configured inside the host operating system, which is more convenient.

We don't have a dedicated team just for Hyper-V. We just have a Microsoft support team. This is a Microsoft product.

The time to value for Hyper-V is shorter than VMware because the customer will typically purchase a Windows Server license with the hardware, so it will be faster.

I think Hyper-V is much cheaper for a small or medium-sized business. If the customer is running VMware and using Windows Server, we still have to purchase a Windows Server license plus the VMware license. Hyper-V will be cheaper if it's just a small deployment for one or two virtual machines.

I rate Hyper-V six out of 10. Hyper-V is okay if customers are comfortable with it and don't require high availability. 

Two main x3650M3 servers with 192GB and 96GB RAM. Primary case was Active Directory infrastructure (actually three DC's), file repository, main MS SQL Server and couple of applications servers.

Additionally remote access thru Desktop Services, management (nVision), central AV (ESET), software routers. In short - whole bunch of different servers and different operating systems Windows Server and desktop, different flavours of Linux, even FreeBSD).

Creating virtual machines is really straightforward. Possibility of changing virtual disk size is very helpful. The simplicity of the interface can be confusing because it really provides some advanced options.

I am waiting for improvements in networking and life migration. Some networking settings could be less cryptic.

More than five years.

I have never had any stability problems caused by Hyper-V for over five years.

I am very satisfied with the scalability of Hyper-V. I'm using up to eight virtual machines on single x3650 M3

We previously used VMware, but we switched because Hyper-V is cheaper and delivers the same stability for less money. To be honest for free.

Initial setup was straightforward. It was easy and fast. It took me between a half  to an hour for complete deployment. The most complex part is the networking.

In-house. To be precise by myself.

Licensing is fairly easy because Hyper-V itself is free.

Citrix Xen, but this solution has become too expensive.