Difference between Hyper-V, KVM, WMware hypervisors and why is Hyper-V undesirable?

Question

Virtualization

Good afternoon! Stumbled on a toaster, one answer to a question. A certain user advises against using Hyper-V for virtualization.
I don't want to breed Hollivar here.
But if there is an opinion that it does not satisfy someone's needs, can you comment on it?
Perhaps after practical advice, I will look at another hypervisor.
Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

A certain user advises against using Hyper-V for virtualization.

I do not advise listening to the advice of a certain user.
%random_joke about_meeting_and_needs%
Hyper-V is a reliable, scalable, and free hypervisor that's ready to meet the needs of any business. The Microsoft Azure cloud is entirely on Hyper-V, this should already outline the capabilities of the hypervisor quite well.
In short, the "maximum number of (processors, memory, disks)" numbers inside a VM in Hyper-V is always higher than in vSphere.
VMWare has better VDI, Microsoft has it cheaper.
VMWare has Fault Tolerance, Microsoft doesn't.
Both devices already know how to forward PCI-E devices to the VM (since WS 2016).
Hyper-V is significantly cheaper. Simply because when you deploy VMWare, you still need to buy Windows licenses.
Hyper-V is much less demanding on hardware. VMWare is notorious for excluding heaps of hardware from HCL simply because.
Hyper-V is significantly cheaper and faster in hyperconverged solutions. Storage Spaces Direct in terms of performance on the same hardware breaks vSAN three times at a three times lower cost.
Storage for Hyper-V is significantly cheaper. VMWare is bound hand and foot by HCL. Hyper-V can use any SMB 3.0 share for storage. Using Windows Server and Storage Spaces as storage under Hyper-V is a supported and recommended option.
About Hyper-V being free: Hyper-V itself is really free. You can download Hyper-V Server, which is fully compatible with the Core installation of Windows Server, but it's free. There are no restrictions in the hypervisor (unlike the free edition of vSphere). The Hyper-V role is available on any edition of Windows Server without the need to purchase any additional licenses. The free edition of Hyper-V has no management restrictions: you can include it in a domain, manage it using System Center, and back it up using the same System Center (unlike the free edition of vSphere).
Bottom line: VMWare has, in fact, the only advantage: Fault Tolerance. Which you won't use anyway - those who really need FT use hardware solutions like Stratum. Otherwise, Microsoft is much cheaper, and in some places even more productive.

Answer 2

I'm running Hyper-v on 2012r2.
There is a VM with Linux Kerio Control. This is such a firewall.
So, on the specified hypervisor, the machine cannot divide the network interface into subinterfaces by vlans. Well, that is, of course, it divides, but the traffic does not go. Checked on bare iron and on vmware - it works. And on hyper-v - no.
I had to add a lot of network adapters to the VM and isolate the desired vlan using the hypervisor. But they ran into a limitation - 12 network adapters per VM.
Such is he.