KVM Reviews

KVM is quite lightweight, not burdened by excessive resource demands. It's straightforward and convenient. Personally, I find it uncomplicated due to its limited graphical user interface (GUI) and reliance on the command line.

The key aspect is that the KVM directly interacts with the Kronos. There's no clear indication of indirect communication with Kronos. It is not linked to Kronos, and interaction is straightforward without any intermediaries.

I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent.

I have been working with KVM for six months. 

Stability is guaranteed due to its open-source nature, ensuring reliable deployment. KVM's internal deployment is secure. The primary aspect is its upcoming release of significant features. I would rate it nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution, and I would rate it six out of ten.

Technical support is provided by the community, which is the foundation of open source, rather than through subscription-based support.

It is easy to setup this solution. The relevance of KVM varies based on your situation. It significantly differs between scenarios. Some individuals utilize it for retail, implying a compact setup with a few VMs, perhaps around four. The scenario determines the specifics. For instance, if there are twelve VMs, the setup process consumes an hour.

You simply need to click the address or follow the sequence. Initially, download the necessary packages, including KVM and others. If you're using a KVM distributor, running 'App Get install KVM' suffices. Once the packages are installed, verify the live web services. Then, confirm the services are operational before proceeding with commands. Deploying KVM is straightforward

This process can be managed by a single individual. The involvement is primarily on the software side, not the hardware aspect of deployment. It's a user-friendly software deployment process.

This solution holds significant importance because when considering payment for products in a smaller setup, clarity might be lacking. However, as your organization expands and adopts numerous solutions, the financial expenses escalates. In contrast, a free pre-established solution seems genuinely sensible in this regard. It is stable and quite affordable so I will rate it 9 out of 10. 

Running virtualization clusters with more than 300 VMs.

The platform changes from hardware to virtualized whenever possible.

• Open source
• The ability to execute live migrations
• Linux, a base OS.

Management of underlying volumes.

We primarily use it to write the payroll solution fort Windows Server 2012 and 2018.

The solution is very light when you are putting your Operating System on it. You forget that there's a virtual layer on your solution. You are using it as if it was a whole computer. It's like having an entire computer that you've launched and have running with the Operating System that you need to work with.

The solution should be more user friendly despite that some interesting graphical solutions are available to manage the VMs. it would be usefull that the solution integrate the VM snapshot features and make it graphical, so we have a VM infrastructure more complete and easy the backup/restore in case of issue.

The solution is very stable. It's been stable since I started using it in 2014.

Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware.

I've never needed to contact technical support. To me, that's a sign of a good solution.

The initial setup is easy. There is a lot of documentation online, so if there is a problem the online information will help you. 

Deployment only took one hour.

I handled the implementation myself.

We're using the on-premises deployment model. We're using the community version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are a consulting company and I work with a lot of solutions to compare them and find out which ones are good for my customers.

The primary use case for this solution is virtualization.

I use this solution in on-premises data centers.

Compared to other virtualization solutions KVM is much faster and better at managing resources. For example, we compared XEN, KVM, and Vmware for creating development infrastructure for our programmers, we ended up using KVM.

The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before.

The performance of this solution is great.

This solution is lacking in features such as management and integration.

• This solution needs better integration with desktop virtualization.
• Better integration with storage solutions is needed.
• Business continuity features need to be added.
• The live migration needs to be improved.
• You cannot run this application in a data center using only the GUI, so you have to have some knowledge with Linux in order to best manage it.
• Better network management software is needed.
• Features like vSAN are not available on KVM.
• Integration with Kubernetes would be an improvement.

Generally, this solution should be made easier to use. Many customers don't have enough experience with Linux or a deep understanding of operating systems, and they just want to use the product. This together with a lack of features has led customers to choose VMware.

I have been working with this solution for more than ten years.

This solution is limited in terms of scalability. I think that it is suitable for a mid-range company, but for a larger company, it is not quick. It does not have features for companies that need expandable solutions.

This solution is not used directly by the end-users. If KVM is installed in their data center then they just use the virtual machine. Users don't care about infrastructure, they're just looking for stability and use the operating system for their service. It is the administrators who use this product. Typically, there are two or three administrators in each data center. In terms of end-users, I have seen more than one hundred concurrent users.

We do not have access to Red Hat support from our country.

For technical support we depend on the internet and the knowledge of our administrators.

I have used XenServer and VMware, and the performance of KVM is better than these.

When it comes to management, integration, business continuity, and live migration, KVM is lacking features and VMware is better in this area.

The initial setup of this solution is not hard, but when you want to use this product in your data center, you have to use the command-line interface to better manage it. You cannot run this application using the GUI alone, so if you don't have enough knowledge with Linux then you may have some trouble.

Most of our solutions are implemented in-house as well as this one.

This solution can be used for free but if you have an expert team on Linux OS, select this one. if you don't have them, forget about it.

I evaluate options such as XenServer, VMware, and KVM every six months in order to choose the best product for my customers.

I have been using this solution since before it was owned by Red Hat, when it was community-based. It is easier to manage than ever before because you used to have to use the command-line interface, instead of the GUI.

I do not recommend this product for those looking for a stable and scalable virtualization solution because they will ultimately have problems in their data center. Just two weeks ago, I helped a friend of mine to migrate from KVM to VMware.

I think that if Red Hat worked on some business continuity features and add them to KVM then it would receive a better grade and be a more competitive solution.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

It is useful for everything for which you would use VirtualBox. It is the kernel virtualization model in Linux. I am using the 5.10 kernel. It comes with the Linux operating system.

It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox.

Its resource usage can be improved. 

I have been using this solution for several years.

It is stable.

There is no support for it except in the community. If you want support, you have to pay a company that provides support for this platform.

There is no installation as such.

It is free for everyone.

I would recommend this solution to others. If they were using Linux, this is a requirement.

I would rate KVM an eight out of ten. If KVM uses less resources, it might improve my score.

It gives us live VM migrations.

It allows us to virtualize our entire IT Infrastructure without any software cost. We only need to spend money on support and deployment.

Used since 2009 from version 0.8, so 6 years now.

No.

No.

It's scaled for us since version 0.8.

Great support for many types of hardware, disks, memory, RAID controllers, etc.

In the Linux world, KVM is a very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead. Reliable and extensible have a tight integration with Linux security facilities, like SELinux, KVM does the job.

You will unlikely see KVM if you are using a cloud solution because of it is a seamless integration. If instead you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed.

KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt.

Our infrastructure is based on KVM and Linux Containers (LXC). We had a lot of VMware legacy, but it was converted to Ubuntu and KVM hypervisor for about the last year. Management and backup is a lot easier with with Ubuntu and KVM, especially combined with ZFS and snapshotting.

The support of virtualization in the recent generation of x86 processor is almost a must have, so the only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen.

It is free and can be run from your laptop, if needed, unlike VMware.