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. 

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.

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.

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. 

I've used it a little bit for virtualization. I've been messing with it for the past month and a half, in an actual environment that goes to the outside world, anyway.

I have a cloud server running. I also have a web server. I'm using it mostly for hosting websites and basically having a cloud service, such as OneDrive or Google Drive.

The product overall has been useful, however, the solution is still too new to really give a concrete example as to how it's changed how the organization functions.

The solution is really easy to use. Basically, it takes just a few command-line statements to install and have it set up and running. From there, you can use the virtual manager, which is command-line. However, there's also a graphical user interface for it. It's just really easy to use. all-around

If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options. You can pretty much run and manage all of the virtual machines straight from the command line, or you can use the practical user interface and do the same thing.  

I noticed that there are even other services like Multitask. You can use Multitask on KVM.

From my skill set and what I'm capable of, I wouldn't know how to say what could be improved as it works exceptionally well. I know that things can always be improved. 

One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines. That's one thing that's a little bit confusing. That's more systems administration, in general. If they would make it a little easier to do, then you wouldn't have to have so much systems admin knowledge in order to use one feature.

I tried to follow the information provided, however, then the partitions were added, the logical drive, and it didn't actually end up being initialized correctly. I'm pretty sure it's due to my own error, and not using it correctly. However, if they would have been clear on how to do it, or if they could even build a command that literally executes the necessary commands for you, just by typing, or using the virtual manager, that would have been helpful.

I've only used the solution for a short period of time, so maybe it's there, however, I'd like it if maybe they could combine some network manager type item in there to be able to bridge connections a little easier. Then, you wouldn't have to do it as a separate task. Perhaps their existing network management already includes that. I'm not sure.

I haven't used the solution for very long at all. I started using it about a month and a half or so ago, since I've had this server. It's all very new to me right now.

The solution seems to be quite stable. I haven't had any crashing, or any bugs or glitches so far.

I'm not sure if the solution can scale well or how easy it can scale as right now I'm having trouble figuring out how to do it correctly. It seems like it is a bit of a confusing process.

Basically, I'm a freelance contractor. Therefore, it's just me using the solution at this time.

I haven't used technical support yet. I haven't been on the solution for very long.

I didn't previously use a different solution. I just recently got this server.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not too complex. There are just a few commands from the command line, and then you're good to go. It's very easy and very quick.

I'm just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with KVM at this time.

I'm using what should be the latest version of the solution right now.

I would advise other organizations that this solution is definitely a good choice. It's definitely something that's easy to use, however, you can have it on a fully functioning operating system that you're familiar with. Or, if you have a little less experience, it's something that you can get up and going really quickly. That said, it is still a type 2. That is a great thing. It functions, and it's under two pounds. It's basically like being on bare metal, which is really nice. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

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.

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.