After a quieter period, oVirt is clearly signaling it’s still alive with the release of oVirt 4.5.7—an update that reinforces the idea that this open-source virtualization management platform, now maintained primarily by the community, remains relevant for organizations that want control, flexibility, and a familiar KVM-based stack. The release focuses on practical operational needs: support for current operating systems, dependency maintenance, security fixes, and stability improvements.
At the same time, the market is being reshaped by a more down-to-earth driver: cost and licensing risk. And in that context—regardless of oVirt’s continued progress—Proxmox is the platform gaining the most momentum in real deployments, particularly among organizations prioritizing predictable spend, faster rollout, and manageable day-to-day operations.
What oVirt is today: continuity, KVM, and centralized management
oVirt is an open-source solution designed to manage virtualization at infrastructure scale, built around the KVM hypervisor and widely adopted components in the Linux ecosystem. For many teams, its role is straightforward: orchestrate virtualization clusters, unify host and network management, and provide a coherent “datacenter-style” administration layer—especially for organizations that want a managed KVM stack without proprietary lock-in.
What’s new in oVirt 4.5.7
Version 4.5.7 is less about flashy change and more about the kind of improvements that reduce friction in production environments:
- Support for CentOS 10 and AlmaLinux 10, expanding compatibility with modern platforms.
- Fixes for a security vulnerability (CVE-2024-7259), important for audited and compliance-driven environments.
- Updates to external dependencies and adjustments to the release pipeline to keep the project sustainable.
- Java build modernization to Java 21, while maintaining compatibility with Java 11—helpful for mixed environments and long-term maintenance.
In short, oVirt 4.5.7 is designed to strengthen its position as a stable, maintainable virtualization management layer rather than reinvent the category.
The bigger context: reducing lock-in and rebuilding optionality
While oVirt updates its foundations, organizations across Europe and beyond are increasingly reassessing platform dependency—especially where licensing complexity and long-term cost exposure have become key concerns. This shift is accelerating a simple reality: teams are actively comparing alternatives based on operational fit, total cost of ownership, migration risk, and support models.
Why Proxmox is gaining the most ground
This is where Proxmox stands out. Not because oVirt is irrelevant, but because Proxmox aligns extremely well with the current market moment:
- It is widely adopted in SMB and mid-market environments—and can scale into demanding setups with good operational discipline.
- It fits “exit strategy” planning for organizations trying to reduce dependency and regain cost predictability.
- Its community, ecosystem, and presence among European infrastructure providers have grown steadily, right as demand for credible alternatives has surged.
Industry perspective (Stackscale)
This is also where the viewpoint from David Carrero, co-founder of Stackscale (Grupo Aire) —a European cloud and bare-metal infrastructure provider that deploys both Proxmox and VMware, and also supports installing other solutions on its servers—becomes relevant.
Carrero argues that the key question in 2026 is no longer “which hypervisor is best in theory,” but how to reduce dependency, control costs, and maintain strategic freedom. In that equation, he notes, Proxmox is expanding quickly because it delivers a pragmatic balance: straightforward deployment, less commercial complexity, and a model that helps customers standardize operations without giving up control over their infrastructure roadmap.
Quick comparison: oVirt vs. common alternatives
| Platform | Model | Strengths | Watch-outs | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| oVirt | Open source | Classic “datacenter” KVM stack, centralized management, enterprise-style architecture | Lower market momentum; requires team familiarity with its ecosystem | Organizations already aligned with KVM and an oVirt/RHV-style management approach |
| Proxmox VE | Open source (optional subscription) | Broad adoption, pragmatic operations, strong cost/value balance | Storage/HA design must be done well as environments grow | VMware migrations, European private cloud, mid-market |
| VMware vSphere | Commercial | Mature platform, broad ecosystem, long-standing integrations | Cost and vendor dependency; licensing/commercial shifts | Large environments already standardized on VMware |
| Nutanix AHV | Commercial | Strong HCI integration, cohesive platform approach | Cost and “all-in” stack trade-offs | Organizations seeking tightly integrated HCI operations |
| Microsoft Hyper-V (SCVMM) | Commercial | Fits naturally in Windows-heavy stacks, Microsoft integration | Less compelling for Linux/KVM-centric teams | Enterprises with strong Microsoft standardization |
What this means for technical teams
- oVirt 4.5.7 is a meaningful continuity signal: if you’re already running oVirt, the upgrade brings modern compatibility and concrete maintenance value.
- If you are evaluating from scratch, the practical “winner” is often the platform that reduces friction the most: Proxmox is capitalizing on that reality through ecosystem momentum and deployment simplicity.
- In 2026, the decision depends less on feature lists and more on operations, total cost, independence strategy, and realistic migration execution.
FAQ
Is oVirt 4.5.7 good news for production environments already using oVirt?
Yes. It improves compatibility with modern OS releases, modernizes core components (including Java 21), and addresses a relevant security issue—helping reduce technical debt and operational risk.
Does it make sense to adopt oVirt from scratch today?
It can, especially if the team wants a classic KVM “datacenter” management model and already has experience with that ecosystem. Still, it should be compared carefully with Proxmox in terms of adoption momentum, ecosystem support, and operational simplicity.
Why is Proxmox said to be gaining more traction?
Because it fits the current landscape: cost pressure, the need for realistic alternatives, faster deployments, and a KVM/Linux foundation without heavy vendor lock-in.
What matters more today: features or strategy?
Strategy often wins. Avoiding excessive dependency, ensuring predictable costs, and keeping the ability to change course without rebuilding the entire environment are increasingly decisive—particularly for European organizations focused on long-term control.