Yup, that’s what Jeff Woolsey (overall PM for Hyper-V) said in the launch videos. We can now have up to 8,000 virtual machines in a Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V cluster. That’s double the 4,000 that was previously announced for the RC release. I guess the clustering group got some new toys to play with 
What will VMware think of this?
Mike Resseler (Cloud and Datacenter MVP) tweeted:
I responded:
Rumour was that up to a month or two ago, VMware’s field offices were ignoring WS2012 Hyper-V. I guess VMware’s people look something like this picture this afternoon:
VMware choking on their own FUD
Hey Tad Eric Grey, did you see 120 virtual machines live migrate at the same time? Wow, but you think 8 VMs is enough. How long do you think it’d take to put a vSphere 5.1 host with 1TB RAM into maintenance? In a real Fortune 500 data center, I’d guess they’d be using big fast Infiniband networking. 8 vMotions at a time over that might take a while, eh? But who’d want that? IT from the year 2000 should suffice.
VMlimited marketing meeting
I’d hate to be the short sighted fool to blog today that Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V was only fit for SMEs.
I’m having way too much fun with this. What a nerd!
8000VMs / 64 hosts = 125 VM per host. Quite risky for server virtualization, I would estimate. But probably appropriate for VDI. If the host has at least 300GB RAM and 40G ethernet or infiniband – who doesn’t like expensive toys? 🙂
Boian,
In a 64 node cluster, I would probably have 4 hosts “free” (obviously still active via load balancing). Any problems I still have free capacity. It’s no more risky than having 10 VMs on a host, and it saves a HELL of a lot of money in terms of power, rackspace, and licensing. Imagine licensing 67 VMs for Windows Server for just a few thousand quid?
– Aidan.