Hyper-V

Hyper-V is a great technology and its inclusion on a large number of Windows Operating systems, not just servers allows for a lot of opportunity to experiment and play with the technology, both from a learning standpoint, as well as gaining experience that will translate into working with Azure and other cloud based technologies. Azure is the next step in server and infrastructure management.

Hyper-V is a great virtualization technology that allows us to create virtual machines over a single physical server. Hyper-V helps us to reduce the data center infrastructure cost and physical server count. Hyper-V provides the centralization environment to maintain all the virtual machines. We can easily manage VMs resources like disk, CPU, and memory.

Hyper-V is highly scalable and flexible and does most things that VMware can, but not quite as well. I feel that Hyper-V development has stagnated and is no longer a true competitor in its class, but that does not mean that it is a bad choice. Hyper-V still needs Windows installed before you setup the Hyper-V role, whereas ESXi does not require a base OS.

Great technology by Microsoft that enables one to easily create virtual machines and manage multiple operating systems on a single physical hardware. It is highly flexible and helps save time and money when in need of computing resources. Live migration capabilities with windows server and Hyper-V replication for efficient backups and disaster recovery possibilities.

If you are using Windows Servers, Hyper-V is the best choice for cost-effectiveness and ease of system management.If you can buy hi-peformance host servers, you should purchace Windows Server Datacenter edition lisence.

Nice software which offers excellent Cloud functionalities and secure channels to effectively move important business data and management of various services without risking any information to various cyber threats. Hyper-V also allows the migration of huge volumes of multiple data with different formats and creating reports is easy for any user.

Because Hyper-V is a Microsoft product and based on Windows OS, creating virtual Windows servers and clients are easy. When we want to test our group policies it it best to do it on hyper-v environment then implement to production clients. The same goes with operating system quality and features updates as well as operating system upgrades.

At first, I only used Microsoft Hyper-V on my own computer. This virtualization software, Hyper-V, is very good to use for creating local labs with one or more virtual machines to do reproductions. Or to perform tests without affecting any production environment. Since this is only used on a local computer, I can't tell how it performs or how manageable it is when used in production environments.

Hyper-V is an OK virtualization hypervisor when used on a Windows workstation or when you have a license for it as a freebie (and no budget and/or knowledge for one of VMWare's solutions). You can do a lot of virtualization tasks manually without problems. Long-term management and more complicated use cases will be challenging and need to be considered. Finally, Hyper-V is not that well suited to be a part of hybrid cloud infrastructure - most of the tooling is proprietary to Microsoft so it's very rare that someone or some system is able to manage Hyper-V hosts using SDKs and APIs.

It's well suited for automation, testing, and research purposes in security labs. Hyper-V really provides performance compared to other virtualization products.

Small businesses that are trying to save costs when software requires a dedicated server are what we have found to be the most useful scenario for Hyper-V as more and more vendors are requiring dedicated server installs for their software. While I understand how this makes support easier for them a small business usually has more than enough horsepower with their existing systems to support these lines of business apps, as Hyper-V licenses are already included when buying windows servers this is often a no-cost option for clients.

We run all our Windows servers virtualized on a couple of physical servers. All the hosts run Hyper-V servers and each will run a couple of virtual servers. It is easy to do backups and restore full VMs when needed. Some VMs we have on multiple hosts in case a host goes down and we quickly need to get the VM up and running again.

I see Hyper-V as working well in a shop that has limited resources. First, it's available at no extra cost via Windows Server licensing. And, if you license Windows Server Datacenter on your Hyper-V host, you can spin up as many servers as your hardware will allow. It gives you flexibility in being able to create/decommission servers without the hardware investment.

Very well suited to small to mid size businesses. Great tools for replication and failover. Easy to implement using existing Microsoft technologies. No need for extensive training if the engineer is well versed with the Microsoft product stack.

Overall [Hyper-V] is a good product. At one point I thought it lagged behind VMWare, but I think it has kept pace now.

I'm a Microsoft Windows 10 Pro user and it provides me a Hyper-V which is HyperVisor which allows you to use An OS on top of your current OS Running on Your Laptop/Desktop, with the Hyper-V one can allocate separate ram/rom from our machine Virtually on the VM to the task more efficiently.

Hyper-V is well suited for virtualization of Windows Server workloads as well as virtual desktop infrastructure. It also works well for building of development and test environments at a lower cost. Hyper-V is less appropriate for environments running multiple operating systems including linux and Apple OSx.

If you don't plan to have more than two virtual servers then Hyper-V is a great option, as it comes included within the Windows Server license. However, if your organization has a great number of virtual servers then you may have to consider other solutions, such as VMware.

Hyper-V is great for an environment that is already running Windows Server. It is very cost effective and the solution itself is solid. Where it would be less appropriate is a project that is not on a tight budget, or an environment not running any Windows Server machines. There are better alternatives.

Simple setups are really great when you want to put multiple VMs on the same physical hardware. You then could use replications of those VMs so that you would have a redundant copy of the VM. You can do this every 5 minutes. Probably not appropriate if you put all your servers in the cloud anyway.

Hyper-V is well suited for shops that are not completely sold into using VMWare for its virtualization needs. There is some limitation on using some hardware with Hyper-V but when it comes to every day server user, the Hyper-V technology is so mature that almost any in house scenario can benefit from its use. Whether it is for space, power or DR reasons.

The only time I can think it would be less appropriate is the case where someone wants a server to have full, un limited access to a hardware based disc system and does not want any competition for the use of the system.

Hyper-V is well suited for a business that does not want to worry about upgrading their server hardware every few years. With virtualization, money can be spent on backups or other key areas of IT like end-user hardware. I really do not see any downsides to using Hyper-V in today's IT world.

Better use of the company's existing infrastructure: when executing various services on a server or set of machines, for example, one can take advantage of the processing capacity of this equipment as close as possible to its totality;
The number of machines is smaller: with the best use of existing resources, the need to acquire new equipment has greatly decreased in the company, as well as the consequent expenses with installation, physical space, refrigeration, maintenance, energy consumption, among others.

With Hyper-V, you have the ability to virtualize and manage virtually every aspect of a service. It allows you to create screenshots of the state of the machine, in order to save the state of the machine up to a certain point and continue with a copy, leaving the previous version intact.

In my opinion, if you are purely virtualizing and managing Windows VMs, Hyper-V is the clear winner. If you require a vastly diverse virtual infrastructure, other alternatives would be better suited for the lower overhead, and less frequent required host reboots. Hyper-V is also competitively priced, so if budget is the main concern Hyper-V is a solid choice.