Hyper-V vs Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)

• Checkpoints are the easiest in Hyper-V. Creating them on live systems, restoring a system to a previous checkpoint in seconds and maintaining the one you were just using in case you have to go back to it again.
• Controlling the resources is extremely useful in Hyper-V as opposed to other solutions that have basic tools only. With Hyper-V you can assign specific number of cores of CPU, or amounts of RAM, and you can set these dynamically with a type of "importance" for each VM, so that if one VM is more essential than a 2nd one, but both are trying to consume 100% of the CPU/RAM, you can designate which server has the most importance and Hyper-V will give it the resources over the 2nd one.
• Replicas are required! If your Hyper-V host dies, your company dies. If you have a Replica Hyper-V Host, you are in good shape! Spinning up a replica server can be done automatically when the primary VM fails, or manually to give you a chance to modify IP/MAC/HostName/etc. This can be done in seconds and have your company up and running again in moments versus days!

Read full review

• Support for multiple shell environments. It supports most of the popular shell environments and lets you create shell scripts for your backend tasks.
• It comes with nice out of the box features for OS level performance monitoring and troubleshooting.
• RHEL has a great support forum. If you ever need technical help, the forum is extremely useful.

Read full review

• For me, checkpoints have been a sore spot over the years. These are system snapshots, where you can roll back the system to a previous point in time if you encounter issues after installing updates, applications, or making changes to the system. I'm using Server 2016 and haven't tried them in this version, but earlier versions created all sorts of issues if you ran into a scenario where you needed to recover a VM. I don't use these, instead relying on Veeam backups.
• Moving VMs from one server to another could be easier. To be clear, I'm not talking about Replica, but actual VM migration.

Read full review

• While the command line installation runs well, the desktop GUI tends to be resource intensive at times
• The GUI based install menu does not scale well at times resulting in some menu options spilling offscreen
• By default a menu based network manager should be included, from my experience particularly with the minimal install, this was not the case resulting in me editing the configuration file directly. Additionally, network tools should also be installed by default.

Read full review

• Positive: It saved my client money because they didn't have to provide an entire laptop for me. Instead, they just gave me a USB stick with an ISO file, which I used to load their image on my Hyper-V.
• Negative: Downtime. I have spent a lot of time troubleshooting connectivity and stability issues within Hyper-V. So although it saved them the initial money of not having to provide a separate laptop, a lot of money was spent in man-hours trying to troubleshoot other issues.
• Positive: Interfacing with the local system. How a VM interfaces with a local system can often be hit or miss. As an example, I'm referring to how easily it can copy/paste between the two systems. Hyper-V does this remarkably well, and it also handles screen sizing with ease.

Read full review

• Overall, RHEL has helped us achieve heights in performance management and handling a large crowd at once with its huge management capacities. It is highly reliable and if used with apt load balancers you will not require more than one backup server because the crash frequency is minimal.
• No negative impacted has been faced as of now since using RHEL.

Read full review