Skip to main content

Decision Support

This section provides evaluation materials to help teams assess Zyvor Fabric against alternative virtualization platforms and make informed adoption decisions.

Contents​

  • Comparison Matrix -- Detailed feature-by-feature comparison of Zyvor Fabric against libvirt/virsh, Proxmox VE, and other VM management solutions. Covers API design, networking, storage, security, and operational model differences.

When to Choose Zyvor Fabric​

Zyvor Fabric is a strong fit when your environment meets these criteria:

  • No systemd requirement -- VM lifecycle is managed by FluxVM, a disposable-VM engine with no systemd dependency of its own; host networking uses direct netlink calls (not systemd-networkd). systemd itself is entirely optional -- only as a way to supervise the zyvor-fabricd daemon process, for operators who choose that supervisor.
  • API-first automation -- You need a comprehensive REST API (780+ endpoints) for infrastructure-as-code workflows, CI/CD pipelines, or custom tooling.
  • Single-host or small-cluster deployments -- You want lightweight VM management without the operational overhead of full cluster orchestration platforms.
  • Security-conscious environments -- You value PAM-based authentication, role-based access control, audit logging, and network policy enforcement built into the platform.

When to Consider Alternatives​

  • Large multi-host clusters with live migration -- Platforms like Proxmox VE or oVirt provide mature cluster management with shared storage and live migration out of the box.
  • Existing libvirt ecosystem -- If your tooling already depends on libvirt's XML domain definitions and virsh, migrating to Zyvor Fabric requires API adaptation.
  • Windows guest workloads -- Zyvor Fabric focuses on Linux guests via its QEMU/KVM-based VM drivers. For mixed Windows/Linux environments, consider Proxmox or libvirt with full QEMU/KVM configuration access.