KVM Reviews

We are using KVM on-premises with Ubuntu 20.04 for the primary purpose of reducing operating expenses (OpEx) and to make maintenance and security easier for us. Of note, with this kind of virtualization technology, you can very easily create backups and restore data in case of disaster.

The services that we have running on our virtualized KVM environment are currently being used by everyone at the company, numbering in the range of thousands of end-users.

We also make use of Proxmox VE and, less often, VMware.

The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so. You don't need to go with the typical black-screen command-line interface; instead, you just have a small graphical interface with which you can create VMs, edit them, upgrade calculations, and perform other administration tasks. And, because the interface is so lightweight, it has very low memory usage.

KVM, as a native virtualization solution, is a complete and fully adequate system for small businesses that need to reduce costs, and also to make maintenance easier. 

One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy. For this kind of task, you have to get behind the command-line to set it, and this process isn't easy for a newcomer. However, if you have planned your virtualization project well and you know exactly how much RAM and storage space you will need for each different VM, you can simply set it and forget it, because everything you set is permanent.

Another improvement I would like to see is better functionality when it comes to making snapshots automatically while the VM is still running. For example, when a VM is running and you want to back it up, occasionally the VM backup that you obtain is not usable. Thus, I would propose that in the next edition of KVM there should be better "hot" backup features (as opposed to "cold" backups which are performed when the VM is powered down). 

I have been using KVM for about six years.

KVM is extremely stable, to the point where I would give it 5/5 stars for stability.

In terms of expanding the dimensions of your virtual disks, KVM is not easy to scale. Let's say you have a 10 GB disk, and you want to scale it up to 15 GB, the process requires that you enter a basic console and use the command-line interface to set the new size. It's not always an easy process for beginners. On the other hand, it is easy enough to scale other resources such as the CPU and RAM.

However, in general, when it comes to supporting a large number of users, it is scalable enough for us as we have thousands of users in the whole company using the services that are being virtualized with KVM.

Additionally, it's not hard to scale when talking about labor and maintenance. For example, I'm the only one administrating the infrastructure, by setting up and managing the VMs (e.g. adding VMs, editing configurations, etc.), for all these thousands of users in all different positions of the company.

I provide support for the system myself and I have not yet needed additional support, mainly because I only use it for basic operations.

KVM is a perfect alternative to commercial solutions in the market such as VMware, especially when it comes to stability. In my experience, KVM is more stable than VMware.

I performed the initial setup and I did not need to contact support. Instead, I provided the support I needed by myself, in order to become comfortable with the basic operation of KVM. Compared to Proxmox, the setup is very similar, although admittedly Proxmox offers a more user-friendly interface to manage VMs.

In all, the setup took about two hours. If the internet connection is good, I install the operating system, then set up the hypervisor and perform the updates before installing the VMs. Two hours is about enough for this entire procedure. 

There is no cost involved in the use of KVM, as it is open source.

On the whole, I would certainly recommend KVM to new users. Going further, I would give the following advice: although it's true that deep administration can be a bit difficult for newcomers who are not used to Linux, if you just follow the tutorial on KVM deployment and plan your deployment properly, you will be able to set up a stable virtualization system with ease. That's one of the perks of KVM — it's natively very stable once it has been set up correctly.

I would rate KVM an eight out of ten.

We moved from VMware to KVM and now use KVM for server virtualization.

Since we use a Docker, the virtualization works fine whether it's KVM or VMware. We don't use this feature much, our developers use Docker to create a container.

The solution overall is just okay. We moved since we are sharing the commercial term from publisher to subscription.

I have no comment. I just use it, and it's okay. However, the scalability part should be better.

I started using the solution some years ago.

The stability is just okay. We haven't experienced any major glitches or downtimes.

I'd rate scalability maybe seven or eight out of ten. It could be better.

We use community support and search for help on the internet.

Neutral

We used VMware before switching to KVM.

For us, the initial setup is okay and simple. We can live with it.

It's just a small setup, which helps save the operation cost.

For basic functions, it should be okay. It helps save operational costs.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I have used KVM in production, testing, and development environments. Additionally, I have configured it in both normal and high-availability environments. 

The platform's most valuable features are stability and ease of management.

They could provide a more comfortable and easier-to-manage interface for the product, whether text-based or graphical. It can be challenging to manage without the support of additional tools.

I have been working with KVM for around three years.

The product is stable. I rate the stability a ten. 

The product is scalable. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

I have resolved any issues I encountered through the KVM documentation and user forums without needing to ask direct questions to the community.

KVM is superior to VirtualBox regarding stability, scalability, and high availability capabilities. While VirtualBox is also a good tool, KVM, especially with Proxmox, offers better deployment options and more flexibility in licensing compared to other virtualization solutions like Hyper-V or VMware.

The setup is complicated. Depending on the environment, it typically takes two days to one week to complete.

I rate the process a three.

Typically, deploying KVM requires only a single individual. However, this person must possess specialized skills in virtualization, Linux, and potentially programming environments such as Bash.

I use KVM for free through Proxmox, which offers a free license alternative. If I needed direct technical assistance, I could purchase a Proxmox subscription at an affordable price. 

I recommend KVM to others and rate it a ten. 

There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness.       

We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment.

The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison.

I would like to see FT features in KVM.

I have been working with KVM for the last three years.

The scalability is good, and I would rate it nine out of ten. 

Our company's provides support to our customers. As a result, we extend comprehensive assistance to our customers in case of KVM and they do not currently utilize KVM support. Instead, they depend on our expertise.

The setup is very easy. It takes almost half an hour if all hardware and connections are strengthened. We possess automation tools at our disposal. These include both script-based and UI-based options to facilitate deployment. Typically, we utilize our graphical user interface (GUI) for assistance in the setup process.  I would rate it nine out of ten.

The solution is extremely cheap in China.

I would rate the overall solution 9 out of 10 as it is really a good solution for people working in China. 

The solution is used as an additional solution for small and medium enterprises in many configurations from just a stand-alone server with some VM's to a few nodes'  clustered virtualization service with hundreds of VMs. Currently, In KVM I have one server for ten to fifteen machines and a three-node cluster with all the features and capabilities.

KVM is my second alternative to virtualization, it complements other things I cannot do with my main virtualization service.

Documentation and problem-solving troubleshooting are the most valuable features. Performance (when fine-tuned and with "special" HW) is awesome, equal to or more than other enterprise closed-source solutions.

Performance-wise it's very similar to other hypervisors, and it is the hypervisor core for other virtualization solutions (just like Proxmox).

The networking with wireless devices needs improvement. If I want to mount KVM on a laptop, it is very difficult to work with wireless devices. Which in contrast, is very easy and transparent in other devices.

I have been using KVM for six years. 

The solution is highly stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

KVM is a very scalable solution. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

The technical support team is good but I use the support from the open source community. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I used to use another hypervisor, but licensing just bored me, so I found KVM. It is powerful and open source and it has a very big support community.

The initial setup is difficult and requires some effort. But since the solution is so powerful, it is worth the effort. I've been working with KVM mostly on-premises but I've deployed it also on private and public clouds. I rate the initial setup's easiness a five out of ten. 

I've always worked on KVM by myself and with support of the KVM community.

I previously evaluated VMware, almost all variants, and Oracle VM Enterprise.

KVM is not easy to configure and has some minor issues. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

Apart from being difficult at its installation and initial setup, the rest is wonderful!

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.

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.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that KVM is much more flexible than Oracle VM. Multithreading in KVM is also a very good feature. Oracle VM supports only serial ports, so executions happen one after the other, while KVM supports parallel ports, allowing you to do multiple tasks at the same time, which also makes it a more flexible choice.

Sometimes, my company has some issues with the storage part, which is mostly not the fault of KVM but a problem with the storage. In general, I don't have any downsides or negative points related to the tool.

In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware.

I have been using KVM for five years. My company recommends KVM to potential customers.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is an easily scalable solution.

My company communicates with Oracle Linux's technical support, and sometimes the support is good, while sometimes it may be a bit less.

My company has experience with Oracle Linux VM and Oracle VM apart from KVM. KVM and Oracle Linux VM are more stable and flexible compared to other products in the market. My company does not recommend products from KVM's competitors since we have an Oracle-centric environment, and most of the time, we get VMs with Oracle licenses only. Oracle VM will not do anything to improve the product since it can be described as an end-of-life product.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

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. 

We are using KVM across our company for virtualization.

In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs.

I have used KVM within the last 12 months.

KVM is stable.

We have used Baremetal.

There are different types of implementations and the current implementation we had, we did not spend enough time to optimize it for a highly demanding production environment. We were not running the most sensitive applications in that environment. Where we needed performance we run Baremetal. In the near future, we are going into cloud-native Kubernetes space as well.

We had some problems with the licensing.

We have evaluated Kubernetes.

We have had a lot of problems with the solution but it is not the fault of KVM. It was our fault for not doing a full suite deployment.

I rate KVM a seven out of ten.