@JaredBusch said in KVM networking with libvirt (virsh) questions:

I assume that Debian 11 uses NetworkManager? I don't have a clean Debian system running KVM to check.

If so nmcli and its related commands are your friend.

Thanks Jared.

Reading about nmcli and seeing your screenshots led me to understand that macvtap devices are only active when the VM is actually running.

Using ip link I can now see the macvtap device on the host. One for each VM connected.

7ad85ba6-1b7b-40a2-aa7a-d8e12988683f-image.png

@stacksofplates said in Automated Provisioning - KVM & CM tools:

@fuznutz04 said in Automated Provisioning - KVM & CM tools:

@stacksofplates said in Automated Provisioning - KVM & CM tools:

Terraform will do this and I have an Ansible role to do it also.
As @IRJ mentioned Vagrant will work also. However I feel Terraform is a better fit as you have more control over the specific pieces of your infrastructure.

You would still prefer Terraform over Ansible for this as well?

Yeah. My role can create the VMs, but Terraform had more functionality for that. Ansible overlaps in the infrastructure provisioning space a lot, but it lacks keeping states like Terraform does.

I'd like to learn both. I just started with Ansible a day or two ago. I have been (and still am) using SaltStack.

@Francesco-Provino said in virt-manager for Windows:

@scottalanmiller you don’t want a GUI on the virtualization host, ever. Just spin a VM with virt-manager and launch it on your local machine with xming or one of the other solutions in the other comments.

Right, bypassing Windows can be an option, but it's a crappy one. But I got it working directly on Windows, so no need for a heavy VM for one app.

@black3dynamite said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

@scottalanmiller said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

@black3dynamite said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

@scottalanmiller said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

I have to say, though, I prefer the Ubuntu LXD approach much better.

I know Canonical is a big supporter of LXD. Who is the big supporter for LXC?

LXD is just an interface for LXC. So Canonical supports LXC through LXD. The biggest contributors to LXC are Virtuozzo, IBM and Google.

So LXD makes it easier to manage LXC?

Yes