Reconsidering ProxMox
-
Thanks @scottalanmiller. This is for my home system so I guess I'll just run with a ZFS mirror since no HW Raid on this machine.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
After all of this, I still don't get the use case for LVM backed VMs. Other than possibly, possibly a super IO heavy database. Even then, it's questionable.
That's roughly it, and yes, it remains questionable at the best of times.
In the cases where you need LVM fat, you almost certainly also need to avoid LVM because that itty bitty overhead is still too much.
Preallocated qcow2 images are 99% as fast as LVM volumes. Even with just preallocating just the metadata I've had almost native disk write speeds. You lose all of the advantages of qcow2 like libguestfs, the qemu agent, internal and external snapshots, etc.
that said, no idea how the eff you do that with ProxMox. That was just KVM.
It's the default actually. We use Qcow2 on LVM-Thin mostly.
Hi Scott (and everyone else),
I've been playing around with Proxmox for a week or so. I haven't used LVM thinpools before so I wanted to check if I'm making sense here. Proxmox doesn't let me put a qcow directly onto a thinpool (like the local-lvm created by default).
Do I need to create a volume group on top of the thinpool, and mount that as directory storage to be able to use qcow2 on LVM-Thin as you're doing?Cheers!
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
After all of this, I still don't get the use case for LVM backed VMs. Other than possibly, possibly a super IO heavy database. Even then, it's questionable.
That's roughly it, and yes, it remains questionable at the best of times.
In the cases where you need LVM fat, you almost certainly also need to avoid LVM because that itty bitty overhead is still too much.
Preallocated qcow2 images are 99% as fast as LVM volumes. Even with just preallocating just the metadata I've had almost native disk write speeds. You lose all of the advantages of qcow2 like libguestfs, the qemu agent, internal and external snapshots, etc.
that said, no idea how the eff you do that with ProxMox. That was just KVM.
It's the default actually. We use Qcow2 on LVM-Thin mostly.
Hi Scott (and everyone else),
I've been playing around with Proxmox for a week or so. I haven't used LVM thinpools before so I wanted to check if I'm making sense here. Proxmox doesn't let me put a qcow directly onto a thinpool (like the local-lvm created by default).
Do I need to create a volume group on top of the thinpool, and mount that as directory storage to be able to use qcow2 on LVM-Thin as you're doing?Cheers!
It's easier to do on a vanilla KVM setup. Proxmox moved away from creating qcow2 for awhile now, you end up creating a raw vm disk image (logical volumes). You can import qcow2, see https://www.republicofit.com/topic/21751/import-a-qcow2-into-proxmox
-
Yeah I'm considering moving form vanilla KVM, particularly for the simplified backup and restore options. Though I haven't yet tried the new proxmox backup server that's just been released. That might make the move more compelling.
Is there a philosophy behind them moving away from creating qcow2?
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Is there a philosophy behind them moving away from creating qcow2?
Likely just for performance. Since it's meant to be an appliance, qcow2 doesn't offer a big advantage.
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around. -
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
-
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
This is what I'm wondering. It sounds like "being weird", trying to work around a perfectly working solution for no particular reason. If I was building my own system from scratch, would I build with qcow2? Probably. But if I choose ProxMox would I try to get under the hood and change the guts, no.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
This is what I'm wondering. It sounds like "being weird", trying to work around a perfectly working solution for no particular reason. If I was building my own system from scratch, would I build with qcow2? Probably. But if I choose ProxMox would I try to get under the hood and change the guts, no.
If all you know is the manual system, using something that is appliance based can be a hard mindset to get into...of course one should get there, sometimes just need a reminder.
-
@Dashrender said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
This is what I'm wondering. It sounds like "being weird", trying to work around a perfectly working solution for no particular reason. If I was building my own system from scratch, would I build with qcow2? Probably. But if I choose ProxMox would I try to get under the hood and change the guts, no.
If all you know is the manual system, using something that is appliance based can be a hard mindset to get into...of course one should get there, sometimes just need a reminder.
This. The post driving this part of the discussion was specifically about someone coming from the vanilla DIY KVM scenario.
-
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
WTF
-
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
If they have to run on Hyper-V, let it by Hyper-V and don't muck around with that sort of nightmare.
-
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
If they have to run on Hyper-V, let it by Hyper-V and don't muck around with that sort of nightmare.
Jared got it (I think).
-
@Dashrender said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
This is what I'm wondering. It sounds like "being weird", trying to work around a perfectly working solution for no particular reason. If I was building my own system from scratch, would I build with qcow2? Probably. But if I choose ProxMox would I try to get under the hood and change the guts, no.
If all you know is the manual system, using something that is appliance based can be a hard mindset to get into...of course one should get there, sometimes just need a reminder.
Or just stick to manual if you are comfortable with that already. No need to move to an appliance.
-
Well since I use this forum a lot and I don't want to be seen as 'weird' I'll try to explain where I was coming from.
Yes I've been using vanilla KVM for a few years and I've always used qcow2. There was some talk about qcow2 earlier in the conversation with stacksofplates being quite positive about their advantages and then SAM saying that he uses qcow2 on lvm-thin mostly and it was the default for Proxmox.
So I thought - those guys generally know what they are talking about, let me see if I can make a qcow2 on lvm-thin.
But proxmox wouldn't let me until I created some directory storage on the thinpool.
Ok great that works - but that seems a little strange - let me ask the guys and gals on the forum what they think.
And here we are.As regards moving to an appliance - I'm comfortable with KVM but I run our VM infrastructure mostly on my own. On occasions where I'm on holiday or otherwise unavailable, it would be helpful if at least a couple of others could administer the system (particularly backups).
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Well since I use this forum a lot and I don't want to be seen as 'weird' I'll try to explain where I was coming from.
Not that you seem weird, just this one thing is what we call "being weird", or at least feels like it.
We all act weird sometimes. -
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
and then SAM saying that he uses qcow2 on lvm-thin mostly and it was the default for Proxmox.
I said that? I must have mispoke.
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
As regards moving to an appliance - I'm comfortable with KVM but I run our VM infrastructure mostly on my own. On occasions where I'm on holiday or otherwise unavailable, it would be helpful if at least a couple of others could administer the system (particularly backups).
Totally makes sense. I'm the same. We have a much larger pool of people for ProxMox support than we do for non-ProxMox KVM support. It's nice to let the bigger pool handle general tasks. And the web interface is really nice.
