Originally Posted by mddesai
Is there any specific reason you donít want to use virtualbox
? Besides, KVM needs steep learning curve, and unless you are required to run full fledged virtual servers, i donít see any reason to deploy kvm. Also, since KVM works great with kernel, linux virtual servers are best fit on it, although you can still use windows. Better solution for ms-windows vm is virtualbox or vmware player. both are free.
KVM is more powerful than virtualbox or VMware and integrates better in Linux environment, especially in RHEL. It needs less ressource overhead as well.
This applies to Linux and Windows guests.
This my own personal experience from testing and using virtualization for a couple of years. (I've used VMware player/server/workstation, HyperV and ESXi as well)
Once you understood KVM it's nice to use as well, but I agree on your point, that the start is not plug n go like VMware player. (unless you are using standard NAT network config and vrt-manager with KVM, that would make it almost equal to VMware player)