VMware vs KVM? Which one is better?

o_be_one

@Ponury_Typ said:

@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).

Yeah that's my talk with a friend pro ESXi... Told him about Proxmox, he doesn't like it BEFORE having tried it. Now he is on it he feels like network is slower than with ESXi (with KVM, he didnt really tried LXC i don't know why).

@MikeA if you mind your point about KVM vs VMWARE could be interesting ^^.

MikeA

@o_be_one said:
@MikeA if you mind your point about KVM vs VMWARE could be interesting ^^.

There's a reason that essentially no hosts use it except ones that only sell Windows. When I think of VMWare I think of some billion dollar company that has a $50 million IT budget and requires a VMWare tech be on site to install it for them.

But I have no real experience with it. I have tried it years ago but don't like it.

amadex1337

arubacloud.com is on vmware

Francisco

@Ponury_Typ said: 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).

Proxmox is the definition of gluing shit together. With PERL.

There's many different projects put together, where as in Vmware and XENSERVER it's all done by a single corporation. The integration should be on point. HyperV is basically the same.

Francisco