Hyper-V vs Scale Computing HC3

• Switch Manager. Once you get your Hyper-V Manager set up, it is pretty easy to use the Virtual Switch Manager to toggle between different connection types for different VMs. It even allows you to change that switch configuration on a running instance without rebooting.
• Multiple VMs. It is very easy to maintain multiple VMs, hence the name "Manager" in Hyper-V Manager.
• Metrics. It is very easy to see the metrics for any specific instance. For example, the allocated memory, checkpoints, security settings, etc.

Read full review

• Scale offers a great dashboard for viewing VM details.
• Installation of clusters is much simpler than other VM platforms.
• Console view of VMs is in web browser and clientless, which makes administration from any machine simpler.

Read full review

• Initial Setup. Adding in new VMs is not an intuitive process. Going through the boot file, the ISO, and figuring out how to get that initial configuration right can be challenging.
• Stability. Overall, it's pretty stable, but I have had my VM crash unexpectedly more times than I expected. It's caused me to take certain precautions in how I handle the data that I keep on there.
• Connectivity. Although the Switch Manager is easy to use, establishing that initial connectivity within the VM can be tough. In a few instances, I had to do a number of resets and reboots in order to get it to work properly.

Read full review

• I would like to see the ability to mount snapshot points in time rather than having to clone a full machine in order to access older data. I believe this is being released in the latest version, but we had a difficult time restoring data without creating a Linux machine and mounting a disk.
• Import and export of VMs isn't as easy as other platforms. Third party tools had to be used to import VMs. Exporting VMs would require the same time and expense.
• I would like to see more access to back end disk data rather than relying on support. I know Scale is targeted to shops with smaller IT departments and the support is great, but I had to go through support in order to get a disk list on the cluster when I could have just done that myself.

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

• When considering providing the ability to provide redundancy and fail over protection, nothing comes close to Scale for overall price. As a comparison, we considered getting two physical servers as opposed to this Scale system. We found that, in order to provide the computing power needed, each server would be in the area of $15k each, before operating systems. Additionally, each server would need to handle multiple services and applications that can cause problems when run on the same machine.
• We have immediately felt the positive impact this system has provided as we lost the outgoing server sooner than anticipated. I was able to immediately regain control of the domain, finalize the move and retire the old system with little impact to the end-user.

Read full review