RHEV Review

RHEV is excellent due to cost, performance and security.

Valuable Features:

RHEV costs are very low compared to other Virtualization products. RHEV hypervisor supports up to 160 cores and up to 2 TB of RAM on a host machine. Performance and security are key advantages of RHEV. One of the new features are transparent huge pages, where kernel dynamically creates large memory pages for virtual machines, which improves performance for most workloads by reducing the number of times that memory is accessed. It is open source, which means that it is available for use by every one. There is a “Power user portal” feature that helps developer and IT staff with a self-service interface that allows them to provision virtual machines, define templates, and be an administrator to their own environment.

Room for Improvement:

You need to buy support from red hat and you need to renew support every year in order to keep getting support from red hat. Some features are unavailable compared to leading visualization products. RHEV hyper-visor came later into the market than other leading visualization product.

Other Advice:

RHEV hyper visor is a cost effective solution for virtualization. Its work on kernel base virtualization systems. Its usage keep growing in the market.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
4 visitors found this review helpful
PatrikConsultantTOP 20LEADERBOARD

If paying for support is an issue then u can try to use http://www.ovirt.org/
This is the oss version where rhev is based on a bit like what fedora is for rhel
u get all the latest features that are not even implemented in rhev the only downside is that u are a tester without commercial support but if u are not just updating things like a fool then this is a great free alterative.

23 August 13
Project Manager at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employeesConsultantTOP REVIEWER

As far as product is concerned, I believe that RHEV is best virtualization in the industry. However, I would like to know your experience with customer support and technical support with RedHat? Have you have faced any issues in renewing your licenses or getting the support tickets resolved?

01 December 13
ctsandersResellerTOP 5LEADERBOARD

Interesting comment kapilmalik1983.

I am curious what makes it better, I am only asking because I have used VMware 5.1 and Citrix 6.5-7 and have found their front end solutions are second to none with the ability to work directly with encrypted environments, API integration where developers can address future needs, VSwitch (Nicira) Openflow technology, IPv6 easy integration (Nat64, DHCPv6), Storage Integration where software can manage your storage environment built into VMware using a resilent filestructure (VSX 5) where it runs on most enterprise, midrange and small servers.

As far as support, if you have purchased a license from VMware, then you are able to obtain support in the event of an outage, also, there is a huge customer base where they use VMware Partner Link where you have a support group from around the world.

If RHEV is taking advantage of the Nvidia Telsa cores and/or if they give you the ability to create a parallel processing environment (cluster/parallel processing) using Cuda to process data at extreme speeds where they incorporate OpenFlow using IPv6 and are able to take over the storage environment using VAAI (Vsphere API for Array Integration), then you my have a point.

Please advise, I am not doubting, just my experience with Redhat was not that good, especially for the small business (I can see it at the enterprise level).


02 December 13
Head of Data Center at a university with 1,001-5,000 employeesVendor

I've been a VMware vSphere 5 and now 5.1 administrator for the last 3 years and I've been looking at other alternatives to it due to high licensing costs. RHEV is one of those that I am seriously considering, as it costs far less than our current set-up. Hyper-V is catching up, but it too will cost more.

Though I haven't really test-drived RHEV, I do agree that it's probably one of best open source solutions out there with paid support if needed. In this line, I'd just like to ask though about Windows guest OS support. We ran into this problem wherein we can't add more than 8 vcpu's on our Windows 2008 Enterprise R2 64-bit VM. Turns out it was an issue with VMware vSphere 5, and the solution was to upgrade to 5.1 and Windows server to Datacenter edition. Does this exist with RHEV as well?

30 January 14
Engineer at a comms service provider with 11-50 employeesVendor

8 vcpu(s) sounds poor for Vmware although maybe its mainly Windows limitation as you say. What is max vcpu number expected once you take the measures you mention?

The figures I have for RHEV/RHEL/KVM (last time I checked) are: Max num vcpu: 4096, max num guests running: 512. These are maximum theoretical limits that are derived from current state of stable Linux kernel.

30 January 14
ctsandersResellerTOP 5LEADERBOARD

I think that is a Windows limitation:

Per Physical ESXi Host VMware vSphere 5.1 VMware vSphere 5.5
Logical CPU 160 320
Virtual CPU 2048 4096
NUMA Nodes 8 16
RAM (Memory) 2TB 4TB* (16TB experimental only support)
VMDK Size 2TB 62TB
vSphere Hypervisor RAM (Memory) 32GB Unlimited
Postgres Database in 5.5 is now supported


30 January 14
Head of Data Center at a university with 1,001-5,000 employeesVendor

Hi Noel,

Thanks for your inputs. I have to check the exact number, but technically Windows Server Datacenter Edition can more or less handle at least 64 cores. Those are impressive stats for RHEV though, and one of the things that can sway potential users to it. If only it can loose the "not for production" stigma and gain more traction, it's definitely a very good alternative.


30 January 14
Head of Data Center at a university with 1,001-5,000 employeesVendor

Hi Todd,

Thanks also for the figures. Yes, they did update the core counts allowed in 5.1. We just upgraded to 5.1 over the weekend, not knowing 5.5 is already here. I still have to read up on the compelling reason to upgrade to 5.5. Do you have experience with this version? If yes, please share if there are significant changes that would warrant the upgrade.


31 January 14
Engineer at a comms service provider with 11-50 employeesVendor

Hi Francis, My impression of RHEV is that main deficits are at the "management layer" not core functionality. I compared some metrics with Vmware, Hyper-V, Citrix and for "virtualization scalability" in particular, it was top of breed - these numbers come from having Linux/KVM as core technologies. RHEV had decent capabilities in Network priortization, Storage capability, VM migration, FC. Management capability was good enough - but I particularly was happy with the REST interface as I was also evaluating what interfaces were exposed for external HA Management (don't ask). Backup needed work as although RHEV 3.3 is introducing new framework for integration with other 3PP vendors; in my organisation we are more interested in Open Standards so while Netbackup/VCS support might be coming - I'm not particularly interested (but others are). Taking price and the "build on RHEL" factors into account; I think the "not for production" stigma is more related to the newcomer tag rather than reality - but RHEV is for companies that have Linux capable IT staff; its not for windows shops. Good product and evolving fast. Redhat need to focus on management/compatibility improvements and the Linux Kernel developers will handle any "max number of..." deficits. Its an interesting product but I'm linux biased.


31 January 14

Well said, Noel. RHEV is for Linux capable IT staffs. The costs of VMware must include the costs of Microsoft products which raise the bar on price that make it a large entry level price for companies who don't currently have Microsoft products.

02 June 14
Project Manager at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employeesConsultantTOP REVIEWER

Very good information about how many logical and virtual CPU can be supported on different types of virtualization. However, could you please guide us where there are any significant better performances or bottlenecks when the number of CPUs are quite large.

07 December 14
Sign Up with Email