KVM Reviews

The most valuable feature of KVM is the hypervisor environment and how we can configure it with ease. Additionally, the interface is intuitive.

I have been using KVM for approximately two years.

KVM is a stable solution.

I have found KVM to be scalable.

The technical support has been good, we are able to receive help for complex environments.

I have previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support.

The initial setup of KVM is simple.

KVM is priced reasonably.

I rate KVM an eight out of ten.

Our primary use cases are for regular hosting and traditional hosting VPSs. We are a provider of VPSs on the market. And the second use case, cloud offer, is also based on KVM.

KVM is pretty good hyper-vision technology and is pretty much the same as VMware and Microsoft.

The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows.

The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on.

I have been using KVM for the past two years.

The stability is better than Red Hat. I find that it is very stable.

We currently have more than ten thousand servers operating on KVM and thirty thousand customers. We do have plans to increase usage.

We previously used Red Hat but the Hypervisor is excellent with KVM and more stable.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward and takes about fifteen minutes to deploy by pushing a button.

We did our implementation in-house and deploy it ourselves.

We see savings every month of around twenty thousand dollars.

KVM is an open-source product that works well for us. 

We did look at the Virtuals option but decided to go with KVM.

KVM is one of the best in virtualization, and I would rate KVM an eight on a scale of one to ten.

I've used it a little bit for virtualization. I've been messing with it for the past month and a half, in an actual environment that goes to the outside world, anyway.

I have a cloud server running. I also have a web server. I'm using it mostly for hosting websites and basically having a cloud service, such as OneDrive or Google Drive.

The product overall has been useful, however, the solution is still too new to really give a concrete example as to how it's changed how the organization functions.

The solution is really easy to use. Basically, it takes just a few command-line statements to install and have it set up and running. From there, you can use the virtual manager, which is command-line. However, there's also a graphical user interface for it. It's just really easy to use. all-around

If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options. You can pretty much run and manage all of the virtual machines straight from the command line, or you can use the practical user interface and do the same thing.  

I noticed that there are even other services like Multitask. You can use Multitask on KVM.

From my skill set and what I'm capable of, I wouldn't know how to say what could be improved as it works exceptionally well. I know that things can always be improved. 

One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines. That's one thing that's a little bit confusing. That's more systems administration, in general. If they would make it a little easier to do, then you wouldn't have to have so much systems admin knowledge in order to use one feature.

I tried to follow the information provided, however, then the partitions were added, the logical drive, and it didn't actually end up being initialized correctly. I'm pretty sure it's due to my own error, and not using it correctly. However, if they would have been clear on how to do it, or if they could even build a command that literally executes the necessary commands for you, just by typing, or using the virtual manager, that would have been helpful.

I've only used the solution for a short period of time, so maybe it's there, however, I'd like it if maybe they could combine some network manager type item in there to be able to bridge connections a little easier. Then, you wouldn't have to do it as a separate task. Perhaps their existing network management already includes that. I'm not sure.

I haven't used the solution for very long at all. I started using it about a month and a half or so ago, since I've had this server. It's all very new to me right now.

The solution seems to be quite stable. I haven't had any crashing, or any bugs or glitches so far.

I'm not sure if the solution can scale well or how easy it can scale as right now I'm having trouble figuring out how to do it correctly. It seems like it is a bit of a confusing process.

Basically, I'm a freelance contractor. Therefore, it's just me using the solution at this time.

I haven't used technical support yet. I haven't been on the solution for very long.

I didn't previously use a different solution. I just recently got this server.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not too complex. There are just a few commands from the command line, and then you're good to go. It's very easy and very quick.

I'm just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with KVM at this time.

I'm using what should be the latest version of the solution right now.

I would advise other organizations that this solution is definitely a good choice. It's definitely something that's easy to use, however, you can have it on a fully functioning operating system that you're familiar with. Or, if you have a little less experience, it's something that you can get up and going really quickly. That said, it is still a type 2. That is a great thing. It functions, and it's under two pounds. It's basically like being on bare metal, which is really nice. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I am using this solution in my home lab because I don't know this solution well enough to put it into production. I have many clients, and by putting KVM into production it would require several changes, which would require more experience.

In the meantime, I will continue to use VMware and ESXi.

I use both on-premises and cloud-based deployment models. I typically use this solution on the cloud because I have many dedicated servers. However, I also use it on low-powered hardware machines, like old laptops, to create a firewall, access the router, or use as an access point.

I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy.

When you install Hypervisor with KVM, you can transform it into a server with the graphical QEME in minutes, then look at what you have and remove all graphical things and then you can restore what you had originally.

The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see some changes made to the dashboard as it would be nice to see some icons and some graphics when you are showing this solution to clients.

MOP made some changes to the dashboard, but it made it more difficult and it's a bit complicated. Maybe this was done intentionally because this is an open-source solution with technical support as an additional fee.

This solution is very stable.

It's straightforward and recoverable, it's easy to do anything.

This solution is scalable. Ubuntu is the best version to scale because with the MAS you can set load balancing, and they offer a free account to manage the load balancing for up to ten servers.

Currently, I am the only user.

I haven't contacted technical support.

I have been using VMware, ESXi, and Linux and will continue to use them while I get more experience with KVM.

The initial setup is straightforward.

There is a lot of information available online. You can do it all by yourself, you just need the time and the will to do it.

This solution is an open-source, free platform with paid support.

You can virtualize anything now, but in my experience, they are good for Linux and Unix systems. I have also used Windows.

Even if you are using another platform hypervisor, as I do with VMware, you may get yourself in a situation where you want to install the KVM or at least the key tools. You can access RAM drives, or broken virtual hard drives, or migrate them to another type of hard drive.

KVM is very complete, it is very powerful, but people are used to graphical QEMU and that is an issue.

The solution performs well and has many tools. It offers everything that all other paid versions have. Everything is in your hands, all you need is the internet to access all of the information on KVM.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use KVM to deploy application servers and host websites. We aim to explore its features further to enhance our projects and implement diverse environments within this virtualization software.

I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting.

I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

In my experience, I haven't encountered any issues with stability. Since I installed and started using it, the system has been working very well.

My company has five users for the product. 

I haven't contacted technical support yet. 

KVM's initial installation was a bit challenging for me, but I believe it's more manageable for those with Linux expertise, especially given the available documentation. It took me approximately five days, working about three hours per day, to fully implement it. 

I did the deployment myself. 

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. You need to have good knowledge of Linux and networks. I would recommend the product to my colleagues.

I'm a senior Linux system administrator and we are customers of KVM. 

I like that this solution is open source, it was easy for me to configure and I haven't had any problems with it.

I think the UI could be developed more in the future because there are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex. A GUI for controlling the VMs would be a good additional feature. It's easy for us but it's difficult for others working with CLI.

I've been using this solution for over three years. 

KVM is stable, but the product from VMware E6 is not stable and I sometimes have issues with it and then the usage of RAM and CPU is costly in my experience. 

This solution is scalable. 

We did not initially have support but when I have used it recently it's been good. 

The initial setup is quite easy for me, I use CentOS. 

KVM is good and I recommend it. In the future, containers will be substituted by virtual machines and KVM need to adapt to be able to support that. 

I rate this product an eight out of 10. 

We are an integrator and this is one of the solutions that we implement for our clients. I have more than twenty years of experience working with these kinds of technologies.

We are using this solution for virtualization on IBM servers.

KVM is a very good solution for the user ecosystem.

The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface.

The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved.

I would like to be able to see virtual networking integrated with the virtual machine.

We have been using KVM for more than five or six years.

We have experienced some strange problems with instability using KVM. If you install a new driver, HBA, or a new PC network adapter, then you can have problems because of the process of certification for these devices. It happens because KVM is a solution that supports many different kinds of hardware, unlike VMware which is much more restrictive in terms of what it is compatible with. The problem with having such an open solution is that it can also be the cause of issues with stability.

The scalability of KVM is not as good as that of VMware. 

We have approximately twenty people who are using this solution.

We were using VMware prior to KVM. It is a very reliable and very strong solution, but it is also very expensive. We are switching to try and reducts cost both in terms of licensing and managing.

The initial setup is more difficult than some other products, such as Nutanix. However, it is easier and more compact than the VMware setup.

We implement KVM for our clients and we have a technical support team of about fifteen people.

The most important thing for people to do when they are researching this kind of solution is to try and understand the main reason and concerns behind virtualization. They should learn the strong points and weakness of this technology, and try to have a base knowledge to understand the concept and how it can be used and managed on a daily basis.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We're a system integrator company, and we implement solutions in these categories based on the requirements and related solutions. Sometimes our logic and security concerns are feature-oriented. Due to that reason, we're working on a case-to-case basis, and we use KVM for some clients.

I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective.

Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view.

I've been working with KVM for about three years.

It's a stable solution. I haven't had any complaints from the customers.

It's a scalable solution.

Technical support could be better. If I compare it to other systems, support services need to be upgraded. For example, VMware provides support instantly. That's our previous experience. If a client asks for support, they give a prompt response. They even try to connect to a remote expert and solve the problems that way.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's quite user-friendly and easy for those who are used to Linux and Oracle environments. But if they're not used to it, then it could be a little complex.

We are an integrator, and we implement this solution.

The price is fair compared to others. But in our local market, it's a problem to get budget approval from management. That's why they are trying to get those products so we can give them the price benefit. But if you consider the international market or other products, it's sometimes better than their price.

I recommend this solution, especially for the banking sector, hospitals, and NGOs.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give KVM an eight.