Hyper-v thoughts: Born from the crucible of fiery experience.
October 09, 2015
Hyper-v thoughts: Born from the crucible of fiery experience.
Score 5 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Software Version
2012 R2
Modules Used
- Hypervisor, failover cluster, live migration
Overall Satisfaction with Hyper-V
We use Hyper-V 2008 R2 in the Enterprise (which thankfully I don't have to support) and we use Hyper-V 2012 R2 in the lab supporting the infrastructure. This consists of required resources such as domain controllers, WSUS, Monitoring that are required for the lab domain. Used because the environment doesn't change much and cheaper than VMware.
- Initial setup is very easy. Just add the role and you've got a hyper-visor that's easy to use
- Cheap
- Hypervisor itself is stable. No BSODs
- Hard/confusing to setup a failover cluster. Must install a separate role on the server and use a separate tool.
- Reliability in multi-node cluster is poor. Live migration has failed on a fresh/correct configuration. Solution on technet was to reboot the VM!
- Product feels "glued together." Use Failover clustering for some things, hyper-v manager for others, SCVMM for others. Confusing.
- Less flexibility. If the host loses management/heartbeat the whole cluster will shutdown to protect integrity even if the VMs are fine. As near as I can tell neither 2008 r2 nor 2012 r2 have an option to control this.
- Cheaper capex
- Ability to split DCs from file/print at ROBO