KVM vs LXD

Overview

KVM

Stacks189

Followers234

Votes8

LXD

Stacks104

Followers194

Votes68

KVM vs LXD: What are the differences?

Introduction This Markdown code provides a comparison between KVM and LXD, highlighting their key differences.

Hypervisor Type: KVM is a full virtualization hypervisor that emulates the entire hardware stack, including the processor, memory, and input/output devices, allowing the running of a wide range of operating systems. On the other hand, LXD is a lightweight container hypervisor that utilizes Linux containers to isolate processes and resources, providing lightweight virtualization without the need for emulating hardware.
Resource Overhead: KVM involves higher resource overhead as it requires emulating the complete hardware environment, resulting in higher memory and processing requirements. In contrast, LXD has lower resource overhead as it uses lightweight containers, enabling more efficient utilization of resources and better overall performance.
Isolation Level: KVM provides stronger isolation between virtual machines (VMs) as each VM has its own emulated hardware stack and runs an independent operating system. In contrast, LXD offers a lower level of isolation as it relies on Linux containers, where processes share the same host kernel, making them more lightweight but potentially less secure if the kernel is compromised.
Application Scope: KVM is well-suited for running diverse workloads that require running multiple operating systems concurrently, including legacy systems and platforms. On the other hand, LXD is specifically designed for running Linux containers, making it ideal for applications that require lightweight virtualization and resource efficiency, such as microservices architectures and cloud-native applications.
Manageability and Flexibility: KVM provides more flexibility in terms of customization and configuration options, allowing fine-grained control over virtual machine settings. Additionally, KVM can be managed using various management tools and orchestration platforms. Conversely, LXD focuses on simplicity and ease of use, providing a more straightforward way to manage containers and offering a standardized API for container management.
Migration and Live Snapshots: KVM supports live migration, allowing VMs to be moved between physical hosts without downtime. It also supports live snapshots, enabling the creation of point-in-time backups of running VMs. In contrast, LXD does not natively support live migration, as it mainly focuses on container management rather than VM migration. However, LXD provides similar functionality through the use of container migration and checkpoint/restore mechanisms.

In Summary, KVM is a full virtualization hypervisor suited for running diverse workloads with higher resource overhead, while LXD is a lightweight container hypervisor ideal for Linux containers, providing lower resource overhead and simplicity in management.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on KVM, LXD

Florian

IT DevOp at Agitos GmbH

Oct 22, 2019

Decided

lxd/lxc and Docker aren't congruent so this comparison needs a more detailed look; but in short I can say: the lxd-integrated administration of storage including zfs with its snapshot capabilities as well as the system container (multi-process) approach of lxc vs. the limited single-process container approach of Docker is the main reason I chose lxd over Docker.

482k views482k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

KVM	LXD
KVM (for Kernel-based Virtual Machine) is a full virtualization solution for Linux on x86 hardware containing virtualization extensions (Intel VT or AMD-V).	LXD isn't a rewrite of LXC, in fact it's building on top of LXC to provide a new, better user experience. Under the hood, LXD uses LXC through liblxc and its Go binding to create and manage the containers. It's basically an alternative to LXC's tools and distribution template system with the added features that come from being controllable over the network.
Statistics
Stacks 189	Stacks 104
Followers 234	Followers 194
Votes 8	Votes 68
Pros & Cons
Pros 4 No license issues 2 Flexible network options 2 Very fast	Pros 10 More simple 8 Open Source 8 API 8 Best 7 Cluster
Integrations
No integrations available	LXC

What are some alternatives to KVM, LXD?

Docker

The Docker Platform is the industry-leading container platform for continuous, high-velocity innovation, enabling organizations to seamlessly build and share any application — from legacy to what comes next — and securely run them anywhere

VirtualBox

VirtualBox is a powerful x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization product for enterprise as well as home use. Not only is VirtualBox an extremely feature rich, high performance product for enterprise customers, it is also the only professional solution that is freely available as Open Source Software under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2.

Proxmox VE

It is a complete open-source platform for all-inclusive enterprise virtualization that tightly integrates KVM hypervisor and LXC containers, software-defined storage and networking functionality on a single platform, and easily manages high availability clusters and disaster recovery tools with the built-in web management interface.

VMware vSphere

vSphere is the world’s leading server virtualization platform. Run fewer servers and reduce capital and operating costs using VMware vSphere to build a cloud computing infrastructure.

LXC

LXC is a userspace interface for the Linux kernel containment features. Through a powerful API and simple tools, it lets Linux users easily create and manage system or application containers.

rkt

Rocket is a cli for running App Containers. The goal of rocket is to be composable, secure, and fast.

Qemu

When used as a machine emulator, it can run OSes and programs made for one machine (e.g. an ARM board) on a different machine (e.g. your own PC). By using dynamic translation, it achieves very good performance. When used as a virtualizer, it achieves near native performance by executing the guest code directly on the host CPU. it supports virtualization when executing under the Xen hypervisor or using the KVM kernel module in Linux. When using KVM, it can virtualize x86, server and embedded PowerPC, 64-bit POWER, S390, 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, and MIPS guests.

Parallels Desktop

Parallels Desktop for Mac allows you to seamlessly run both Windows and MacOS applications side-by-side with speed, control and confidence.

Vagrant Cloud

Vagrant Cloud pairs with Vagrant to enable access, insight and collaboration across teams, as well as to bring exposure to community contributions and development environments.

Parallels

It is an application and desktop virtualization software vendor that offers management and delivery platforms for Apple macOS and Microsoft Windows desktop deployments.

Related Comparisons

KVM vs LXD: What are the differences?

Introduction This Markdown code provides a comparison between KVM and LXD, highlighting their key differences.

Hypervisor Type: KVM is a full virtualization hypervisor that emulates the entire hardware stack, including the processor, memory, and input/output devices, allowing the running of a wide range of operating systems. On the other hand, LXD is a lightweight container hypervisor that utilizes Linux containers to isolate processes and resources, providing lightweight virtualization without the need for emulating hardware.
Resource Overhead: KVM involves higher resource overhead as it requires emulating the complete hardware environment, resulting in higher memory and processing requirements. In contrast, LXD has lower resource overhead as it uses lightweight containers, enabling more efficient utilization of resources and better overall performance.
Isolation Level: KVM provides stronger isolation between virtual machines (VMs) as each VM has its own emulated hardware stack and runs an independent operating system. In contrast, LXD offers a lower level of isolation as it relies on Linux containers, where processes share the same host kernel, making them more lightweight but potentially less secure if the kernel is compromised.
Application Scope: KVM is well-suited for running diverse workloads that require running multiple operating systems concurrently, including legacy systems and platforms. On the other hand, LXD is specifically designed for running Linux containers, making it ideal for applications that require lightweight virtualization and resource efficiency, such as microservices architectures and cloud-native applications.
Manageability and Flexibility: KVM provides more flexibility in terms of customization and configuration options, allowing fine-grained control over virtual machine settings. Additionally, KVM can be managed using various management tools and orchestration platforms. Conversely, LXD focuses on simplicity and ease of use, providing a more straightforward way to manage containers and offering a standardized API for container management.
Migration and Live Snapshots: KVM supports live migration, allowing VMs to be moved between physical hosts without downtime. It also supports live snapshots, enabling the creation of point-in-time backups of running VMs. In contrast, LXD does not natively support live migration, as it mainly focuses on container management rather than VM migration. However, LXD provides similar functionality through the use of container migration and checkpoint/restore mechanisms.

KVM vs LXD

Overview