Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


VMware vs KVM? Which one is better?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

VMware vs KVM? Which one is better?

Question in the title. İ always used KVM vps. But today i got an offer with VMware. İt's really good price. But i have no experience with VMware.

Which one is better? What are your experience with them?

VMware vs KVM? Which one is better?
  1. VMware vs KVM? Which one is better?94 votes
    1. Vmware
      31.91%
    2. Kvm
      68.09%
«1

Comments

  • I tried Qemu/KVM a few hours ago. This is a great timing for your question LOL. I wanted to see some feedback too.

    I was using VirtualBox, but couldn't make folder sharing work. So I tried VMware. Didn't setup shared folder, but their drag-n-drop worked flawlessly even for a big file.

    Then I saw people were talking about Qemy/KVM on Reddit over the new Linux kernel post.

    Took me a few hours to be satisfied. I probably will be using Qemu/KVM for now, until I got any reason to move back to VMware or VirtualBox.

  • AlwaysSkintAlwaysSkint Member
    edited August 2020

    Personally, I like vmware better (dunno why just do) but it all comes down to implementation. Also, I haven't come across a vmware provider that allows a console for the VPS, which is virtually (geddit?) defacto standard for KVM.

  • I personally prefer KVM over VMWare. Have you considered trying it out and seeing which you like better personally? :)

  • Whichever one which lets you download additional cores.

    Thanked by 1AlwaysSkint
  • I heard that full virtualization could compress ram and CPU.. It was great invention..

  • @SlingHost said:
    I personally prefer KVM over VMWare. Have you considered trying it out and seeing which you like better personally? :)

    İ never tried VMware but will try now. According to red hat docs both VMware and KVM are tier 1 virtualization technology.

    @tetech said:
    Whichever one which lets you download additional cores.

    That right. İ downloaded 1tb SSD from Google play store. Now my phone has 1tb storage. İ will definitely download more core

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • o_be_oneo_be_one Member
    edited August 2020

    I would like to read inputs from providers like @seriesn , @dustinc , @ViridWeb or @Francisco ^^

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran
    edited August 2020

    @o_be_one said:
    I would like to read inputs from providers like @seriesn , @dustinc , @ViridWeb or @Francisco ^^

    VMWare is really costly, thousands per CPU. It has some cool features like vSan but, again, crazy addon costs. It has some wicked HA features...more heavy costs.

    KVM is free and you gotta glue everything together to get a similar, but almost universally, less complete product.

    I think KVM performs better? haven't looked at benches in a long time.

    Francisco

  • @o_be_one said:
    I would like to read inputs from providers like @seriesn , @dustinc , @ViridWeb or @Francisco ^^

    Haven't played with VMware. Didn't have the need to mess with one. Won't really need to mess with one.

    KVM does the job perfectly fine and without any cost or crazy overhead.

    Thanked by 1o_be_one
  • @AlwaysSkint said:
    Personally, I like vmware better (dunno why just do) but it all comes down to implementation. Also, I haven't come across a vmware provider that allows a console for the VPS, which is virtually (geddit?) defacto standard for KVM.

    Cloud at Cost has a custom control panel and run VMWare, but their console regularly breaks and unstable AF.

    Thanked by 1o_be_one
  • VMWare makes many products and baremetal hypervisor is just one of them. The ESXi as in hypervisor server is really good. It is designed to catered enterprise needs and fit well withing enterprise eco system. But if you are just using the VPS then as an end user it wouldn't matter at all.
    Think of VMWare as an eco system where it addresses not only your hypervisor requirements, but also for storage, HA, monitoring, networking, load balancing, security and much more..
    I know VMWare is prominently known for the hypervisor but there is more to it then just hypervisor with lots of support and integration. Hence even with cost, it is popular in the private data centers.

    Thanked by 1o_be_one
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    @o_be_one said:
    I would like to read inputs from providers like @seriesn , @dustinc , @ViridWeb or @Francisco ^^

    It depends which kind of particular feature you are looking for. If KVM can fulfill your work then you should stick with that.

    We are very much happy with our KVM setup.

    Also the pricing of Vmware is not sustainable for small businesses or budget friendly providers, it may suitable for large enterprises.

    Thanked by 1o_be_one
  • @TimboJones said: Cloud at Cost has..

    Didn't realise that. Gave up on them a good few years back after they introduced the yearly fee and they got chucked out of PayPal. Might still have an active shared VPS with the awesome(ly poor) Load. :open_mouth:

  • @Francisco said:

    @o_be_one said:
    I would like to read inputs from providers like @seriesn , @dustinc , @ViridWeb or @Francisco ^^

    VMWare is really costly, thousands per CPU. It has some cool features like vSan but, again, crazy addon costs. It has some wicked HA features...more heavy costs.

    KVM is free and you gotta glue everything together to get a similar, but almost universally, less complete product.

    I think KVM performs better? haven't looked at benches in a long time.

    Francisco

    You don't have to glue anything together, there is already Proxmox that has all the features that You would want from the hypervisor (features that in vmware world cost shit tone of money).

    Thanked by 1o_be_one
  • VMWare esexy licenses can be bought cheaply from ebay.
    In general it is more secure than a standard qemu+kvm setup and since it is enterprise stuff it has better support and more advanced features. Depends on what you want to use the hypervisor for and is mostly important for the VPS provider. If you are just an end user which buys a VPS it won't matter too much.

  • VMWare caters to enterprise environments where uptime, scalability and HA is high priority. It's expensive, yes, but it is used in environments where infrastructure is key and cost is unimportant. VMWare gives you a complete infrastructure with hypervisor, storage, VDI, HA and whatever. You pay a shitload for the infrastructure and then you know that you can have as many vm's as you like and they will always be up.

    For a lowend VPS reseller VMWare is just stupid, it doesn't really give you any advantages over KVM.

    Thanked by 1raindog308
  • ^ put Proxmox into the same infrastructure (rather than the standalone freebie) and I'll hazard a guess the cost also gets kinda hefty.

  • @AlwaysSkint said:

    @TimboJones said: Cloud at Cost has..

    Didn't realise that. Gave up on them a good few years back after they introduced the yearly fee and they got chucked out of PayPal. Might still have an active shared VPS with the awesome(ly poor) Load. :open_mouth:

    You could probably pay $7 to upgrade one core to V3 and the fee goes away again. Try logging in to the panel and see if you get upgrade options.

  • What about tossing HyperV into the mix? It seems to have better performance with Windows than VMware or KVM

    So it ends up depending on what the usage of the virtual machine will be.

    Thanked by 2ViridWeb webcraft
  • rcxbrcxb Member

    What VMWare product are we talking about? Player? ESXi? etc.

    VMWare has excellent compatibility with rather old OSes, with multiple network and SCSI controllers that perform well.

    KVM is has very limited hardware support, you basically NEED virtio drivers for your OS but those are available for all modern Windows and Linux OSes at least, and if you've got that, it'll perform well.

    Go with KVM if possible. Longer-term, it's much cheaper, it'll keep working, bugs will get fixed, help/documentation is widely available, etc. VMWare may never fix bugs you run into, you have to keep paying for new versions, you have to deal with a monster that doesn't integrate very well with your Linux system, etc.

  • @doughnet said:
    What about tossing HyperV into the mix? It seems to have better performance with Windows than VMware or KVM

    So it ends up depending on what the usage of the virtual machine will be.

    HyperV has its place, but in my opinion its not comparable to either VMWare or KVM.
    It doesn't have the stability and HA-capabilities of VMWare nor the ease of use and low cost of KVM.
    Running a single node hypervisor with a few VM's on local storage works just fine, but anything bigger than that and it quickly turns into a nightmare. Going big involves things like SCOM/SCVMM and that's a can of worm very few people are willing to open.

  • AlwaysSkintAlwaysSkint Member
    edited August 2020

    A Windows server (HyperV) to virtualise a proper OS - you're having a giraffe! The primary reason for leaving eUKHost.

    @TimboJones the removal of PayPal means I won't be giving CaC any more bucks. For kicks, I tried to login to my shared WHM via the Client Area - error. The domain is now elapsed, so can't use a direct route. Oh well, no loss.

  • Matthew18_Matthew18_ Member
    edited August 2020

    To me VMWare looks very costly, if anything. It surely works better if you have an integrated solution with DELL servers (also if you want to be able to just make a call and solve all of your issues with their support). But I see KVM as something that gives you a ton more flexibility.

    You can develop any kind of system you want on top of it, plus it's Open Source so you have the benefit of doing practically everything, the sky is the limit. That's the main reason why I prefer KVM over VMWare. I was about to go and say "Drivers support", but both of them are OK with varying degrees of success depending on what you're trying to do, but there's a high chance that most things you can do on one are possible to do as well on the other.

  • @rcy026 said:

    @doughnet said:
    What about tossing HyperV into the mix? It seems to have better performance with Windows than VMware or KVM

    So it ends up depending on what the usage of the virtual machine will be.

    HyperV has its place, but in my opinion its not comparable to either VMWare or KVM.
    It doesn't have the stability and HA-capabilities of VMWare nor the ease of use and low cost of KVM.
    Running a single node hypervisor with a few VM's on local storage works just fine, but anything bigger than that and it quickly turns into a nightmare. Going big involves things like SCOM/SCVMM and that's a can of worm very few people are willing to open.

    It definitely has the stability and HA if properly setup.

    I don’t agree with that statement. I’ve used a hyperV for work that had 20 RDP users in it daily. It was running like a standard system, stable and had zero downtime over the 2 years I used the service. That’s much better than other LET services could say.

  • @doughnet said:
    It definitely has the stability and HA if properly setup.

    I don’t agree with that statement. I’ve used a hyperV for work that had 20 RDP users in it daily. It was running like a standard system, stable and had zero downtime over the 2 years I used the service. That’s much better than other LET services could say.

    As I said, single nodes work just fine, but thats not HA.
    I used to run HyperV in a multiple enclosure, 16 blades per enclosure environment and 3PAR storage with thousands of VM's. It was a frikkin nightmare with constant outages and 12-16 hour a day workdays.
    I've also managed VMWare environments twice that size with half the manpower, and there was basically nothing to do.

    Zero downtime over 2 years is actually not impressive at all when you look at large environments.
    And as stated earlier, VMWare and HyperV is not suitable for lowend KVM resellers, so to even compare them to any services offered at LET is just stupid.

  • @rcy026 said:
    As I said, single nodes work just fine, but thats not HA.
    I used to run HyperV in a multiple enclosure, 16 blades per enclosure environment and 3PAR storage with thousands of VM's. It was a frikkin nightmare with constant outages and 12-16 hour a day workdays.

    Sounds like you didn’t know how to get a proper setup done. Simple as that. If you did a proper setup then it wouldn’t have those issues.

  • Apart from software costs there is also hardware.
    ESXi/vCenter as well as all the "advanced" features like HA require very specific hardware configurations. It is not always bad, but it certainly makes things less flexible.
    KVM on the other hand can run on anything linux supports, which means much more flexibility in terms of storage options and such.

  • @doughnet said:

    @rcy026 said:
    As I said, single nodes work just fine, but thats not HA.
    I used to run HyperV in a multiple enclosure, 16 blades per enclosure environment and 3PAR storage with thousands of VM's. It was a frikkin nightmare with constant outages and 12-16 hour a day workdays.

    Sounds like you didn’t know how to get a proper setup done. Simple as that. If you did a proper setup then it wouldn’t have those issues.

    Nice try, but no. I know what I'm doing. :)

    Just look at big enterprise environments. See a lot of HyperV? No? But there is VMWare in just about every DC, despite the cost? I wonder why...
    If you think HyperV is just as good as VMWare, you are not a big player. Simple as that.

    Thanked by 2raindog308 bugrakoc
  • @rcy026 said:

    @doughnet said:

    @rcy026 said:
    As I said, single nodes work just fine, but thats not HA.
    I used to run HyperV in a multiple enclosure, 16 blades per enclosure environment and 3PAR storage with thousands of VM's. It was a frikkin nightmare with constant outages and 12-16 hour a day workdays.

    Sounds like you didn’t know how to get a proper setup done. Simple as that. If you did a proper setup then it wouldn’t have those issues.

    Nice try, but no. I know what I'm doing. :)

    Just look at big enterprise environments. See a lot of HyperV? No? But there is VMWare in just about every DC, despite the cost? I wonder why...
    If you think HyperV is just as good as VMWare, you are not a big player. Simple as that.

    I'd rather run ESXi at home over free Hyper-V, but there's advantages for running Windows VM servers on Windows servers. There's also companies that like Microsoft storage and reiserfs and from what I can tell, Microsoft put a shitload of effort into improving HA and migrating in last 5 years.

  • Anyone actually benchmarked ESXi vs Proxmox lately?

Sign In or Register to comment.