This is a link a coworker sent around last night.  There are lots of articles about how great hyper-v is, and there are lots of articles about how subpar it is.  This, however, is the only article that quotes MS themselves about the Hyper-V product.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc974012.aspx

Some highlights/lowlights:

An 8 Core server with 32 gb of ram is only good for hosting 5.7 production servers.

A 16 core server with more than 32 gb of ram is only good for hosting 10 low utilization development servers.

Now, those numbers are really pathetic.

” Virtual Machines that are configured for “high availability” by being clustered, could actually have more downtime than those running on a single standalone host.”

Colour me stupid, but what is the point of that?

The above quote is from http://vinternals.com/2009/04/microsoft-myths-and-realities/ which is an easier read than the Technet article.

We have only implemented Hyper-V for one client at work.  It is only running 2 VM’s, one for File and Print and one for BES.  It is a little bit of a pain as you need an AV client for the host as well, and you have to include it in your normal MS security patch cycle.  We put in an 4 core 12gb of ram host for it as it was our first implementation and we wanted to overspec the server.  Reading that technet article, it doesn’t sound like we overspec’d it at all!