Hyper-V vs Scale Computing HC3

• 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

• The Scale Computing HC3 system is so easy to maintain. We came from another virtual system and the difference in administration is huge. The time we save in maintaining this system allows us to spend more time on other network tasks.
• We are using the snapshot feature as part of our DR plan. Here again, it is very easy to configure the snapshot plan and the way that Scale manages the snapshots does not require large amounts of additional storage.
• When we installed the HC3 system, it took longer to mount the equipment in the rack and cable it then to have the system online. Management is very simple using their web-based interface.

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

• There are times when the alerts can be a little vague if you don't contact customer support to get a clarification of what might be wrong.
• I would like to see some integrated backup support at some time, and not have to use a third-party agent on each virtual machine.

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

• We have experienced cost reduction to our Disaster Recovery solution. The prior expense of 1 year of DR can now cover multiple years using Scale HC3 with Cloud Unity.
• Our Scale solution is more cost effective than our legacy solution. The cost of 1 major component (appliance) from our legacy solution was approximately half the cost of our production Scale cluster.

Read full review