KVM Reviews

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 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'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.

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. 

KVM runs virtualized guests with its own kernel, which is very important to me.

I mainly use it for customer projects, as KVM allows running virtualized environments for free in a very efficient way. Furthermore, it is an open source solution so modifying the code is possible. One might think that this is never necessary for most projects; however, when a specific customer requested an enhancement of the functionality, I was able to provide that. The customer was very impressed that KVM is such a professional solution although it is free.

Over the years, many customers were happy that they were able to choose between VMware, Xen and another alternative - KVM.

Setting KVM up and running it with dozens of parameters can be annoying. However, there is a control interface called Virsh (and also a GUI called virt-manager) which allows running KVM guests with a simple config file.

I have been using KVM since 2010, so for fives years in total.

So far, no issues.

When running I/O intensive tasks, or having a very high amount of network packages which need to reach the guest(s). However, all issues were under control after tuning the config of the KVM guests.

No issues yet.

There is no customer service, only the community. It is a free product, based on open source software. However, one can use RHEV (the enterprise virtualization product from Red Hat), then you will be able to contact the Red Hat support.

I used Xen in the past and switched because the customers requested a solution which allows running a guest with its own Kernel. This is also possible with Xen, but not a common use case, though.

The initial setup, when done manually, is complex because you need to be an experienced Linux user or admin, especially as the networking part can be challenging.

I always deploy it on my own.

It is free! Use it and if you need enterprise support, make sure to use RHEV, the virtualization product from Red Hat.

No, because in the open source world, there are not many hypervisors which have the same feature set as KVM.

Make sure to gain a lot of knowledge about virtualization and the way KVM works. Then implement it with libvirt and virt-manager because this makes running KVM guests a lot easier.

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.

We integrate KVM as part of our product. I'm the CTO of our company. 

The solution is very cost-effective. VMware is exorbitantly priced and compared with other products KVM is much cheaper especially in the public cloud scenario.

Their support for snapshot and revert could be improved. I'd also like to see the product achieve high availability across clusters and to have more support for Apache CloudStack.

I've been using this solution for over a year. 

We haven't had any issues with stability. 

Scalability is fine, no problems at all. 

We have worked with certain support vendors and they're fine. In particular, we work with one of the Red Hat partners and we're quite happy.

The complexity or otherwise of the initial setup depends on the situation but generally it's not too difficult. We offer our customers maintenance support which generally involves update patching.

KVM offers both an open source and licensed version. 

Before deployment, it's worth checking whether the solution fits your use case and how it would be used across various large deployments. Test it before implementing. 

I rate the solution seven out of 10.