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

• Simple solution to managing storage, virtualization and snapshots on one page with not more than 3 clicks
• Excellent technical support with support built into the suite for quick access when required by the Scale Computing Technicians.
• High performance out of the Flash and Spinning Disks through HyperCore Enhanced Automated Tiering (HEAT)
• High availability feature helps in ensuring that there is no single point of failure

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

• As with everything, I wish the price was a bit cheaper but by comparison to others but it's not bad when compared to similar solutions.
• Not that it was needed in my case but the option to have a Scale engineer on site for setup might be nice for some instances.
• The scheduling of the setup calls and training could be explained a little better and even possibly a quick overview of how to use the scheduling portion of the customer portal.

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

• The platform saved us 40% at deployment vs. traditional alternative and was a substantially smaller investment that alternative hyper-convergence solutions with similar performance specifications.
• We have been able to reduce head-count by one with the HC3 platform in place.
• We have been able to eliminate the annual licensing cost associated with VMware which added to the ROI of HC3.

Read full review