Hyper-V Reviews

My datacenter has not needed to get any bigger even though I added 30 servers

Less power consumption as well as cooling

Easy to do maintenance on hosts with Live Migration

Easier & faster setup for Linux OS on Windows machines with minimal setup, thus saving time and money on hardware

Consistency in estimates was more possible since using Hyper-V machines caused less unexpected failures, and thus devs were able to keep working at the same rate

It is completely worthwhile because the license of Windows Server includes the possibility of installing two virtual machines.

Makes it possible to maximize the use of the owned physical resources.

Having separate virtual machines with different services makes the infrastructure more scalable.

If you need more than 2 virtual servers the costs grow a lot.

Reduced hardware cost

Reduced power consumption

Easy servers administration

Reduced maintenance cost

Physically smaller setup

Easy backup and restore

Work more efficiently with lesser resources

The product is least expensive

One Bare metal Hyper-V setup is capable of hosting multiple VMs that provides ease of access

Live Migration feature helps diversify the previously created VMs on other Hyper-V hosts

No licensing fees allow for more testing

Basically no support, you're on your own

Very easy to use

Easy to spin up on devices.

Low barrier to entry on personal devices if hardware permits.

Great training tools.

Hyper-V has allowed us to take a small IT room and have it server up dozens of servers despite the lack of space available for hardware.

Since it is basically free, any return from its use is a positive return on investment and the lessened power usage is a great way to show this when considering Hyper-v.

We have had many instances of host machines blue screening or rebooting on their own and the clustering capability of Hyper-V, when used with Windows systems, has allowed these issues to be invisible to users.

Flexible, able to handle multiple workloads.

It has compatibility with Windows.

Cost of licensing the product in comparison to other alternatives.

Setup is sometimes confusing and VMware knowledge does not always translate well.

Lessened Server Sprawl

Made things simpler

More agility

Saved power and battery

Massively positive impact on expenses in my company by reducing our storage needs drastically. We were able to reallocate the budget to upgrading our primary Hyper-V server with pure enterprise SSD's as we reduced the storage needs by over 50% and by this we increased performance by over 400%.

We have deployed more than 8 servers with EXTREMELY minimal cost using Hyper-V and not requiring another hardware server to host it. We have leveraged our hardware resources in our 2 servers so well that we were able to add many new services, not in place prior, as we did not have the servers to host them. Now with Hyper-V, we deployed many more servers in VM's, purchased OS's & CAL's, but did not need any hardware, which is the greatest expense of all.

With Hyper-V, our ROI was reduced from 36-40 months on our primary server, down to only 13 months by reducing costs of storage and adding so many more servers, by calculating the "would-be" cost of those servers that was avoided by creating them in Hyper-V.

Hyper-V has been nothing but positive for our company.

With the way Virtualization works it has saved us a bunch of money vs. having to go out and build a server for each environment we needed to host our customers.

The ability to tell and show our customers that their data is safe due to the ease of backup has been wonderful.

The ease of deployment is has also been very beneficial for us. If I need to get a new server up and running it only takes a few hours to get everything setup and updated and ready to roll out.

Saving on hardware

Saving on maintenance time

Cost reduction and TCO.

Improves business agility.

It's free, so there is no big investment.

It improved business continuity.

Hyper-V is competitively priced, and has allowed some of our clients the ability to create a successful, stable virtual environment that supports day to day operations.

Patch Tuesday has previously been a major downside, however the alternatives also do require host reboots when significant patches are required, or downtime associated with VM reboots if not the host. It is starting to level off.

The biggest and quickest ROI is the licensing cost as it is free.

It is Windows-based, so even if your engineers have not used it, they can easily figure most of it out because it is Windows which saves on training costs.

Some people just prefer VMware and fighting the negativity of that can be difficult.

Training is available everywhere.

You must have an MS premier support contract or else you will not have any support.

Hyper-V has provided for an extremely cost-effective virtual environment with disaster recovery. For the size of our business, it's all we need to ensure our desired level of continuity of services and protection against hardware failures.

Since we are a Windows shop, deploying Hyper-V means we don't have the added cost of a hypervisor, since it's included in the cost of the Windows Server license. It's all we needed to achieve our goal of running all our virtual machines on a single server with another, less expensive server on tap for replication and failover.

We wanted easy deployment and management with disaster recovery while having the ability to leverage our years of Windows SysAdmin experience. Hyper-V fit the bill.

Hyper-V has saved a good deal of money for our company. We leveraged the licensing we have with Microsoft to "spin up" a cluster without having to purchase tens of thousands of dollars of additional licensing for virtualization.

Applications, such as Zerto and Veeam, are slow to support the newest versions of Hyper-V 2019.

Again, greatly reduced hardware costs.

Simplified and unified backup and disaster recovery across both Windows and Linux servers.

Much easier scale-ability.

Hardware Costs

Support Costs

Future needs

There was an extreme positivity to migrating our environment to HyperV. The Hardware cost savings are exponential and Microsoft Licensing can also be a cost savings depending on how you license your hosts (Enterprise vs Data Center Licenses).

Being able to use one higher powered machine to then virtualize a multitude of other machines has definitely saved on hardware costs. The exact amount, however, is difficult to calculate.

Initial setup of Hyper-V can be time consuming, and setting up individual VM's is more time consuming than setting up a real machine. However, once the initial setup is done, overall time costs are lowered.

We have had Hyper-V crap out and we could not find out why it happened. There are a lot of unknowns.

To a company with a limited budget that is looking to P2V to save on hardware and electrical cost, while lowering their datacenter footprint, this is a good option.

Cheaper than VMWare and hyper-converged.

Although navigating Microsoft's licensing labyrinth is unpleasant, dealing with VMware's very high cost is a bigger problem. Choosing Hyper-V has saved us a lot of money that is better spent on software and support.

Because Hyper-V is readily available, easy to implement, and easy to manage, it has saved us a lot of money on training. Just about any Windows administrator can use Hyper-V. After a few sessions, a competent administrator can be an expert. Some virtualization solutions require multiple expensive classes to gain that same level of knowledge.

Hyper-V's lack of cost has allowed us to build an entire test environment for free. We can test migrations, test new software, and build VMs at will all in an environment that was essentially free. We used hardware that we had on hand and we already had Windows server licenses.