We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly. So the systems are stuck, and we are not getting much help online. The online support is very less. We are not getting any kind of blogs and other things. So it is difficult to check out, like, how if some problem is coming, how we can fix it out. So that is not known to us. Hence, we are planning to get into a support contract with Oracle. Also, the Linux support we will get can help us technically with our problems and difficulties because we need to configure the cluster. We are not able to configure the cluster. So, I believe we needed some technical support or help to configure the cluster. In future releases of the product, I would like to see features and improvements in the solution that can make it have a user-friendly interface, better technical support, and easy cluster configuration. Also, blogs, and technical write-ups should be there. We should get the maximum help so that we can maximize the solution's usage.

Also, some kind of help tutorials should be made available so that the new users who are trying to install it can get help.

The fact that it is not a user-friendly tool should be considered for improvement.

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.

The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful compared to VMware.

KVM is better than Oracle VM since it is better to manage. Oracle VM is terrific when you update it. Also, Oracle VM is not stable. In fact, KVM is better. KVM did an audit last week on the performance. According to the audit, KVM is 40% better than Oracle VM.

The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery. If you have two data centers, which are very, very far from each other, when your latency on the network is very high, you may have some problems. So, sometimes it is better to deploy a cluster on the first data center and use some technologies which are valuable, like Data Guard, between the two data centers. It's better than using a storage application because the console has some constraints with the latency. When you have more than 100 milliseconds of network latency, it is not possible to use disaster recovery. So, the aforementioned details can be taken into consideration for improvement.

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 product must provide better performance monitoring features.

In terms of improvement, I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift. This would enhance scalability and management capabilities, aligning KVM with industry standards and providing clients with more comprehensive features and options.

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.

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). 

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

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.

The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on.

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 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 encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation. 

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.

The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see some changes made to the dashboard as it would be nice to see some icons and some graphics when you are showing this solution to clients.

MOP made some changes to the dashboard, but it made it more difficult and it's a bit complicated. Maybe this was done intentionally because this is an open-source solution with technical support as an additional fee.

Management of underlying volumes.

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.

Its resource usage can be improved. 

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.

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.

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.

KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations. It's also too dependent on other solutions and has no backend customization.

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.

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.

This solution is lacking in features such as management and integration.

• This solution needs better integration with desktop virtualization.
• Better integration with storage solutions is needed.
• Business continuity features need to be added.
• The live migration needs to be improved.
• You cannot run this application in a data center using only the GUI, so you have to have some knowledge with Linux in order to best manage it.
• Better network management software is needed.
• Features like vSAN are not available on KVM.
• Integration with Kubernetes would be an improvement.

Generally, this solution should be made easier to use. Many customers don't have enough experience with Linux or a deep understanding of operating systems, and they just want to use the product. This together with a lack of features has led customers to choose VMware.

Monitoring and resolution are features which could be improved and I've found that if the product has not been used for some time, it needs to be re-set. 

I would like to see a separation, so you could have KVM running in a few cores, and then you could have a real-time operating system running another core, so there is a hybrid environment with real time operating systems and Linux.

full interoprability with vm format (ova, ovf, ..) for been aable to move forward or backward to another virtualization solution

The management of the whole system, could be improved. VMware is better on the management tools, for example, Red Hat is when it comes to the KVM.

In addition, we would like to have a software lifecycle solution included in this solution. We can handle the software needed for KVM, but also the software that we provide. A lifecycle component would be very beneficial.

The support of virtualization in the recent generation of x86 processor is almost a must have, so the only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen.

In the future release of KVM, I would like to have improved support for Windows guests.

Networking configuration might be annoying depending on how you want to set it up; usually works fine, though.