Hyper-V Reviews

We primarily use the product for multiple servers and for Dynamics AX, for example, the routing server, the load balancer, the application server, and stuff like that.

The initial setup is very easy.

The scalability is okay.

The performance of VMware was better, which is why I've moved away from Hyper-V.

The operating system is very, very heavy. Sometimes the system is pretty slow. Basically, the iOS performance is very slow, as compared to VMware. They must make the OS as simple and as smooth as they can to make it more user-friendly and faster.

The product is quite expensive.

I've been using the solution for about one year. 

The performance isn't that great. If can be slow. 

The stability is okay. I'd describe it as between 50 to 60% stable. 

The scalability is decent. I'd say that it can scale to 60 to 70%.

We've had so many issues, however, we didn't really ask for help from Microsoft. We mostly did a lot of googling and worked to figure things out on our end. 

I've recently moved over to vSphere. 

The product is not difficult to set up. It's not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any problems with its implementation.

The first time I did an implementation, I needed help from Microsoft. They assisted us originally.

The solution is quite expensive when you compare it to other products. Microsoft solutions aren't cheap. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I have used the Hyper-V for Dynamics AX for a while, however, recently I moved to a virtual machine, VM.

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. It's not the worst, however, it certainly is not the best either. 

I would recommend Hyper-V to users, especially if they are dealing with a Microsoft OS.

We primarily use this solution as a hypervisor.

They could turn it into a product because that's the problem with it. It doesn't have a single place where you can manage things. You have to go into all different screens to be able to configure it. It is hard to track what the performance is. It's really just a feature added to Windows, and Microsoft does not really have anything that pulls it all together well. Compared to VMware, it does not have everything collaborate on one screen.

In addition, the solution needs better ability to do backups. 

Once it is setup, there is no problem.

It is a hypervisor, so if you had more servers, you get more scale.

The initial setup is not straightforward, it is a bunch of Microsoft parts that you have to arrange yourself. You have to set up the networking so that you have redundancy. You then have to go in, cluster two Windows servers, which is not so easy. The Hyper-V becomes simple, but it does not happen if the other things are not properly configured.

It takes roughly four hours to install. 

There is no ROI for us, because it is a free product.

It is free for us so that was a prime factor for choosing this solution.

We are currently seriously considering migrating to VMware solutions.

It is good for small installations. If you are looking to do anything fancy, this is is not a good choice.

My primary use case is for virtualization of all solutions from physical servers into other solutions for ease of management. 

With the virtualization  what we could achieve was maximum utilization of our resources. Previously we used to like have ten, fifteen physical service each one was utilized for a certain percentage and uh, not everything was utilized. I mean one service was maybe 20% utilization one was 90% utilization. So, there was no balance of utilization. With virtualization we can balance. In addition, we can be accurate at the with the solution or Hyper-V, this gives us a close decision I can move motion machines live from one physical machine to another.

I am able to give end users better performance and better response time and better availability.

The the only challenge for us was moving existing physical machines to virtual machines. The time taken was to migrate the physical machine to the virtual machine took about two months.

With each update, the security of this solution just gets better and better. It is very stable.

We have 250 employees and current users at any given point of time using this solution. One infrastructure has an ARCo database. Another has a Si database. The applications have a site exchange between them.

We have two employees who maintain deployment and management of the solution. One handles the database, and the other handles the application. We plan to scale to more users in the future.

The time taken for integration was to migrate the physical machine to the virtual machine. We had to do this one by one.

The set up was very straightforward, you just follow the procedure, the documentation, and it is a breeze.

We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product.

I think that Hyper-V stands in the same ranking as VMware or Oracle in terms of solutions for similar needs.

If you want to use a solution that does the job that is required, to the best of its ability, then Hyper-V is a great solution.

They need to make the initial configuration more straightforward, as the networking part is confusing.

I've used it for three years.

I find out that for smaller shops, that have under 50VMs with a 1gb network, you don't need separate iSCSI traffic for your data. I know that all the best practices tell you to separate the traffic, but what I am seeing, is a much better Hyper-V performance if you keep ISCSI traffic with your data traffic. If you can use CIFS instead of the iSCSI, go with CIFS, HyperV loves CIFS.

We did have problems, and you need to make sure that the LUNs have enough space. If you run out of space, you will need to spend a few hours to bring the VMs up.

If you know what you are doing, you can automate the deployment of a new Hyper-V host with a PXE boot and VMM.

5/10.

It's 5/10 as it is like a lotto, you never know who you will get on other side. Sometimes you get an expert, and sometimes you get a beginner.

We previously used VMware. The primary reason to switch to Hyper-V was the cost, as Hyper-V is for free.

The networking part is confusing for the beginners

We did it in-house.

Hyper-V is free, however if you build clusters, you should get a manager to centralize the management. If you are big enough and you have some money, I strongly recommend System Center, which includes VMM and other great tools like Orchestrator. You can automate building your VMs and even your application tiers. Also with VMM, you can automate spinning up new Hyper-V hosts with PXE boot. I configured, I used it, and it works perfectly.

If you are small shop go with a third party Hyper-V manager like 5nine. It is cheap, they even have a free version, and also a converter from VMware is free. I am using it right now and it works great. It includes alerting.

If for some reason you cant get either, you can manage your clusters directly from fail over cluster manager. It is just more manual work than with the tools above.

For the cost, it has almost the same features as VMware. If you are a Microsoft shop, then get Hyper-V with System Center to connect to Windows Azure and you are all set.

I use it personally for training. I do some testing for myself. I use it for virtualization and have used it to compare testing functionality. 

It has not helped my organization. I just use it for testing.

The solution works well on Windows.

The product, overall, works well. 

I like the functionality. Users can use it in a hybrid scenario.

The virtualization capabilities are good.

When it comes to Hyper-V, the worst thing is it's based on the Windows operating system. For the installation of Hyper-V, you're supposed to install the right operating system. For me, it's strange.

I have some experience with the solution, however, I haven't used it for too long. I've used it for the last 12 months, at least. I might have used it for six months in total. 

I'm not sure which version I'm using. It was the basic setup on the 2016 servers.

I use the solution for my personal projects. 

We use Hyper-V for data center virtualization.

Hyper-V has improved our organization by enabling consolidation, high availability, disaster recovery, backups, and more. It makes it all simple.

I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center.

Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. Performance can also be better.

We used Hyper-V from 2008 to 2019.

Hyper-V is a stable solution.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. 

I haven't used Microsoft's technical support much.

We have used Citrix and VMware. I would say VMware is simpler for the deployment side of it. Hyper-V is also easy to deploy, but you need to set it up as a role.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. The deployment time depends on the hardware. It can take anywhere from 20 minutes to half an hour. One engineer can implement, manage, and maintain this solution.

It's free with a Windows license, but you can say that there is an ROI in separating workloads.

Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.

I would recommend Hyper-V for small-scale users with one or two VMs. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V a seven.

I use this solution for some of my virtual machines.

It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner.

I find the hardware and the cost reduction most valuable.

The backup has room for improvement. 

It is a pretty stable solution. 

I have not scaled it because I am not running it in a cluster environment anymore. I do know that the clusters work and that Hyper-V can easily scale for an organization's greater needs.

Microsoft tech support is horrible.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took a day to deploy. 

The Hyper-V pricing and licensing are very good. 

I looked at Hyper-V vs AHV, which is a Nutanix product. Nutanix Acropolis is a hyperconverged product that does a lot of next-level type of virtualization software.