We performed a comparison between KVM, Oracle VM VirtualBox, and VMware vSphere based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."The initial setup was simple."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"Our production servers are running in Linux, and this solution supports that environment well."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"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."
"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."
"The solution has high performance and is easy to use."
"This solution can be used on many different platforms including Windows and Linux."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy bidirectionally between the desktop and the virtual machine."
"I like that Oracle VM is safe and stable. It is also very easy to administer. For example, opening a VM or adding a host adapter is extremely easy."
"It is a stable product."
"Technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"With the current compliance options that I have to go through, it's very nice to have a lot of the encryption built in. It checks a lot of boxes for the federal level so I don't have to either bolt something on or have something on top of it. Having it native and integrated into the system makes things much easier."
"The enterprise direction is very complete and the data center provides almost everything you need."
"We don't have any downtime because it was built right."
"This product is useful for running multiple virtual machines from a single server so that people can utilize the hardware resources in their organization. Its ability for backups is also valuable. In case of a disaster, you can recover the entire server from the images. It is easy to use. In terms of features, whatever they are providing is more than sufficient for us. We are not exploiting this product up to a hundred percent."
"Its stability and manageability are valuable."
"The solution is also very simple and efficient to manage. Features that have made it simple and easy to manage include the newer VAMI for the V-center appliance, it's very easy to see what version we are at, and very easy to upgrade to the next version. The fact that we can now use VCHA at the appliance level just decreases our chance of having an outage because so many of our customers rely on the API interface for V-center."
"The stability of the solution is excellent."
"The solution is scalable."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"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."
"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."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"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 solution needs to improve its flexibility. It's not as flexible as VMware."
"The installation is difficult and could be improved."
"The memory and hardware usage could be a little bit lighter. Right now, it's quite heavy on the usage. The CPU usage should be lower."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
"It has some issues when you have some weird device drivers. For instance, when you have a weird sound driver working on your machine, and the VirtualBox needs to output the sound of the virtual machine into the sound driver of the physical machine, the bare metal, it doesn't work too well. If you tweak lots of drivers and play around with the different kinds of drivers and machines, you will probably break something. I have not played with it too much and maybe it already supports it, but it would probably be good to have the ability to use a container from the virtual machine environment instead of spinning off a complete virtual machine. There are other tools for that. On Linux, you have a DXE, LXC framework, and you have Docker as well. Docker is good because it is multi-platform, and you can run Docker on pretty much anything, even different processors, but it would be good if we had a VirtualBox running on it while spinning off containers instead of full virtual machines. The other thing that will become important, and I'm pretty sure that they are thinking about it as well is that there's this new hardware platform that Apple is releasing, which is an ARM-based new chip. So, VirtualBox will probably have to work on ARM-based CPUs as well."
"The solution lacks some open source remote administration tools. The reload of individual virtual machine definitions through the vboxweb service (via its API) without restarting it and the access to shared storage (to use teleport functions) need to be improved."
"One valuable feature would be for it to work right the first time but it doesn't necessarily do that."
"Having live migrations to move a running server to other hardware would be great."
"I would like to see improvements in simplifying automation, cloud native deployment, administration, and fault resolution."
"I feel that the scalability of the solution should be improved."
"The support for the latest version could be improved."
"The cost can be better."
"We have had some problems setting up the monitoring with vSphere. The process could be simplified."
"The price could be better. The licensing is definitely expensive and tech support is sometimes frustrating."
"An improvement could be in terms of keeping up with the upgrades. The upgrades could be set in an automated way so that the newer features don't require you to manually update, or you get an option to update automatically. This would be a useful enhancement."
"We would like to see the container-based operating system launched soon for this solution."
