I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab • Hacker News Board

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#81

Post by Zetaphor » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

noncoml wrote: post #47

gregsadetsky wrote: post #14

+1000 points for the PiKVM V4 Plus. We (Revise Robotics - a YC company!) refurbish laptops with robots and AI - as part of this, we (or rather, the AI) send(s) keyboard commands in software to the computers we're refurbishing. How/why? The AI needs to navigate the BIOS among other tasks - so we need a KVM to send arrow down and enter, roughly speaking. We were a GL.iNet KVM shop until we ran into a nasty issue with a…

$400 for kvm?

You're supporting the developers original work at that price. There's plenty of cheaper devices that take that original work and just throw it on some chips

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#82

Post by dchuk » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 4:36 PM UTC

I backed jetkvm on kickstarter or indiegogo or whatever site they launched on out of excitement. It’s a well made device, the software is clean. It feels like it’s stopped being iterated on though which is a bummer (the tariff timing was likely brutal).

Even though I have it on Ethernet on a gigabit network at home, with WiFi 7 mesh that gets 950mb up/down to the internet, I’ve never been able to use jetkvm whether through their cloud portal or through direct ip connection without it feeling very sluggish. It’s plugged into an aging NUC that I know is still performant, and I previously had no machine setup with settings configured to a smooth basically realtime feel even over Tailscale remotely, so I don’t know if I just am using the wrong settings or something or what. Might just have to have codex computer use fiddle with it to see if it can figure it out.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#83

Post by p_l » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

noncoml wrote: post #65

geerlingguy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of devices used that have no built-in BMC (like the Thinkpads in the original comment in this thread), yet still need reliable remote control in certain cases (e.g. a remote lab, or multiple-unit headless testing). It would be a bit odd if a place was deploying new Dell servers and slapping IP KVMs on top of them.

OK, I just don't see the intersection of people/companies that are using thinkpads in their server room and those willing to pay $400 for a KVM being too large

Surprising amount of gear required extra licenses or even parts to have fully functional remote console that does all the stuff PiKVM 4 brings to the table, and not always do you have the benefit of properly operational netboot infrastructure (especially in corporate settings with their usually broken by design networks) - and remote boot media might be gated behind license.

So you end up with ipkvm because there might be windows server that requires remote display, or because for various reasons IPMI SOL or equivalent does not work properly (BIOS mode enabled instead of UEFI, SOL requiring extra license, etc). Or even not being able to setup autoconfiguration for BMC but for various reasons it's easier to setup ipkvm.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#84

Post by p_l » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #64

mstaoru wrote: post #58

Surprised nobody mentioned Intel vPro AMT so far. It is basically an always-on KVM that's part of CPU firmware, powered by an always-on 5V PSU rail. There is a scary amount of options, including unattended periodic (or alarm based) phone home, user acceptance or full user override, boot media spoofing, Serial over WiFi... All built-in into consumer(-ish) CPUs.

> All built-in into consumer(-ish) CPUs. Dude, I wish. I run a large homelab filled with consumer and small business grade intel hardware, and would love to have vpro on all my mid-high end consumer intel platforms. I have the experience and network environment to lock it all down securely, and it's very reliable high performance low level access from before boot. It's true that some number of relatively expensive co…

And don't forget it's not really about chipset, it's about market segmentation and up selling you for setting a boolean flag in firmware.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#85

Post by burnt-resistor » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:38 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#86

Post by burnt-resistor » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:42 PM UTC

chrisss395 wrote: post #10

I have a CSE847 and HP DL380 G10 that have gone down for me due to power outages. Many of these look complex, and I basically just need remote power-on/toggle capability. Should I be looking at something else?

Use a network-managed PDU or UPS, and set systems to always power on on power restore. With that, you don't need iLO or BMC and can use in-band, host-based remote desktop.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#87

Post by burnt-resistor » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

magicconch wrote: post #13

chrisss395 wrote: post #10

I have a CSE847 and HP DL380 G10 that have gone down for me due to power outages. Many of these look complex, and I basically just need remote power-on/toggle capability. Should I be looking at something else?

You could configure BIOS/UEFI to power-on when power is restored (or return to last state). Or use wake-on-LAN, which quite a few consumer routers can send through their web interface.

WoL is LAN specific, unreliable, and sometimes needs extra wires. Last state and a network-managed PDU/UPS us all you need.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#88

Post by burnt-resistor » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:50 PM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #16

chrisss395 wrote: post #10

I have a CSE847 and HP DL380 G10 that have gone down for me due to power outages. Many of these look complex, and I basically just need remote power-on/toggle capability. Should I be looking at something else?

Don't your servers already have BMCs supporting IPMI to provide full remote management? Often features like full KVM will require extra licensing, but remote power on is one of the most basic features and I've never encountered a BMC that didn't provide at least that much remote control.

It likely depends on the mfgr. Supermicro calls it SFT-OOB-LIC. HP has standard and advanced iLO. Haven't tried the IPMI interface on Supermicro without a license, but basic power operation might work.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#89

Post by wowczarek » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 12:26 AM UTC

Not exactly full "IP KVM" and missing the VM part, BUT for basic screen access to say a server or scope or whatever with a VGA output, those dirt cheap "VGA to USB" converters found all over Amazon etc., can do a semi decent job as well. Not as good as gold standard VGA frame grabbers, but they present as a video device so they are supported out of the box in every major OS. There's always one or two in my kit bag. So much better than pushing a monitor on wheels.

The article covers a range of "new" KVMs but doesn't even mention the staples used for decades like Avocent, Aten and APC. When I ran or built a lab, we'd always have the key systems on KVM but always three or four "swing" adapters on long runs of cat6 to reach anywhere in the whole room. Lifesaver.

Re: I tested every IP KVM in my Homelab

#90

Post by rendaw » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 2:13 AM UTC

geerlingguy wrote: post #75

rendaw wrote: post #71

I was looking into this and there were reports of e.g. connection delays making it impossible to access bios on a booting machine. This is a huge issue - rebooting and power management are big ip kvm use cases, and it isn't even touched on in the review. I'm trying to make sense of this test. It seems like basically a listicle with "this is great" and a copy/paste of the datasheet specs. Most of the observations are…

If you only have 1s to hit Del for BIOS it can be a problem, especially if you're powering the IP KVM off of the computer being controlled. But otherwise, I've tested BIOS access on every one of these and it works on the PCs I've tested. Mounting ISO's can be tricky sometimes but mostly "just works" now.

Why didn't you include that stuff in your writeup? BIOS is only mentioned in the introduction, latency isn't mentioned at all...

Also did you test this stuff from within the lab, or remotely from somewhere else? I think e.g. JetKVM BIOS issues may be when accessed via Tailscale while on the road, or at a hotel, etc.