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 use KVM virtualization on which Red Hat works very actively. We run Windows servers from it and some of our other machines as well. We also use it as a container in the way others may use Docker.

We can use the solution the same way we use Red Hat, even though we don't use Red Hat itself. 

It offers a high-availability environment. We like the way everything is distributed. If one node dies, another resource is automatically enabled.

It offers good virtualization.

The solution, generally, is very familiar to VMware. The difference it is free to use. It has all of the main features you would find on VMware.

It works 24/7 without fail. 

The setup is very simple. 

It is stable.

The solution can scale.

We have found the solution to have good forums for troubleshooting. 

If it would work a little faster, that would be ideal. It's run on a 10GB network, so it is relatively slow.

Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail.

I've been using the solution for ten years or more. 

It is a completely stable solution. While there may be a few bugs, in general, we didn't face any special issues. 

The solution is scalable. You can have as many servers as you want to run as a deployment. I'd rate the scalability nine out of ten. We use CEPH storage that is extremely scalable and can go up to petabytes, although we don't have a use case for that sizing. 

We likely do not have plans to increase usage. Our basic needs are covered.

I've never used technical support. There are forums, however, that are available if people need assistance. Typically, if something comes up, you aren't the first person dealing with it. 

We have used VMware and Microsoft Hyper V, among others, and then changed to KVM. I was not happy with Hyper V at all as we didn't want to use any Microsoft domain, and Hyper V needed us to use it. KVM allows us to avoid Microsoft. 

The initial setup process is pretty simple and straightforward. Even in high availability mode, the setup is simple. 

If you have, for example, three servers and all of them can run the restore machines, and one dies, and everything moves to the others, for that step, you do need some sort of storage.

The deployment takes two or three days, at least if you need to start from scratch.

If you are doing the implementation in combination with setting up separate networks and everything, you need to program the hardware and so on, and that takes a little bit. 

I'd rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. Sometimes it doesn't work as you expect at the outset. We just need one person to handle the setup as we are a small company.

The solution is free to use and open-source. You may have to pay for support, however. There is an enterprise option that can be accessed as well. 

I am an end-user.

I'm not sure which version number of the solution we're using. 

I'd warn users that if they do not have experience with systems, then it may not be suitable. You need a bit of knowledge. Most companies use system integrators, and it is hard to sell free software. You can sell your services, yet not the solution. It's easier to sell VMware. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to customers who don't have technical skills.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The use cases for KVM depend on the customer's needs, and I deliver different customer services. For example, if a customer wants a virtual machine for a certain purpose, I give them a finished solution.

The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability.

The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly.

I have been using KVM for five years.

I rate KVM a nine out of ten for stability.

I provide other solutions like VMware virtual desktop and ESXi server.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We deployed the solution through an in-house team in 10 to 15 minutes.

I use the free version of KVM, and I'm not sure if there is a paid version.

I would recommend KVM to other users.

Overall, I rate KVM a nine 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.

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'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. 

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 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.