@scottalanmiller said in KVM with Cockpit on Fedora 29 Network Type Options Greyed Out: When building a new VM using Cockpit's web interface to KVM on Fedora 29, the Network Type option leaves most options like Bridge to LAN, Generic ethernet connections, and Direct attachment greyed out. Anyone know why? Did you try with network manager? Any missing package?

Too bad KVM is not available on Mac then I can move from using Virtualbox.

@obsolesce said in Fedora 28 KVM Cockpit Doesn't Show All VMs: Everyone is always waiting for someone else to report bugs and issues, that's why they take so long to get fixed. Not as bad with FOSS, but a big reason with MS for example. But I don't know that it is a bug. It's reasonable that it might be, but it's just one possibility.

@stacksofplates said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: @dashrender said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: @stacksofplates said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: @scottalanmiller said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: @stacksofplates said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: @scottalanmiller said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: @eddiejennings said in Remote management of VMs hosted in colocation: Allowing an SSH connection to the managementVM from the Internet I have not tried this approach yet, and it appears more risky than the Screen Connect approach, since SSH to that VM would be open to the Internet. Unless I'm missing some benefit to this approach, I'll not be using it. Use a strong key, lock to your IP. Very safe. Add Fail2Ban, of course. Or add Salt and open/close based on need so it doesn't stay open. Fail2ban doesn't work with keys. But it would work normally with people attacking using non-keys, would it not? Or am I missing something about what it would do? Why would you not require keys? Not making them mandatory defeats the purpose of using them. I think he means - if a hacker is trying to use a password on a system setup to only allow keys - the fail2ban will block those users, or won't it? No. It's dropped before fail2ban even sees it. Oh, makes sense. There is no "attempt" like with a password, it is "already blocked."

@flaxking said in Check my 2 min audio theory on Containers: @scottalanmiller said in Check my 2 min audio theory on Containers: @flaxking said in Check my 2 min audio theory on Containers: What you're talking about is one aspect of part of implementing DevOps that is often misinterpreted to mean the whole of it. And yes, it is stupid to call that DevOps. That's just Ops using different tools. I see it as the opposite. Patrick's core DevOps... "Thanks to the devopsdays conference, the idea of devops seems to live on. While talking with other people about it, I realize that it is difficult to frame it within the current IT landscape. At lot of the ideas are coming from different kinds of emerging technologies (T) and process management (P) approaches. For me the two most important observations are: there is a increase in feedback loops between business, all parts of the delivery process and operations thanks to this feedback loops we increase the quality and speed up the flow" This is the core of DevOps, not well described, but pretty clearly about IT, not development. This is the core. Very, very loosely defined to the point of useless, sure. Then things like DevOps talking dev itself is the extra, the tack on later. It's not "part of" devops, any more than it is of any operations. And just how operations doesn't cease to exist without developers, neither does DevOps. I believe everything on that page is all meant to be within the context of companies doing development. But I agree, the core of DevOps is about Ops and Business practices. However, I firmly believe the name DevOps comes from Ops and Development working together, and thus the reason why discussions of DevOps implementation specifics centre around companies doing software development. Though just based on that page, I could see why someone could still take a different view. However, I consider The DevOps Handbook to be the definitive source, rather than notes on the initial discussions. I think doing that makes DevOps a pointless, useless concept. Hopefully that's not what he intended. As an ops practice, it has tremendous value. As a merger of dev and ops, it's just bluster.

@scottalanmiller said in Delete All Snapshots on KVM with Virsh: Is this a personal alias to Remove-VMSnapshot perhaps? No I had that first but edited it incorrectly. Missed the VM in front. But ya I thought vmcheckpoint was an alias but it's not. Remove-VMSnapshot is correct. So weird, they renamed it to checkpoint, but never changed the PS commands.

@stacksofplates I can imagine. Good luck!

@emad-r said in Nested hypervisors?: also as vendor they dont want the complexity advantages of Virtualization ftfy

@jaredbusch said in KVM Virtual Machine Boot Order: @obsolesce said in KVM Virtual Machine Boot Order: @matteo-nunziati said in KVM Virtual Machine Boot Order: @dustinb3403 said in KVM Virtual Machine Boot Order: @obsolesce that's annoying. . . Edit: still annoying but doesn't Hyper-V have startup priority? No it hasnt until I checked 6 months ago. Only way is build a delay schema by hand and assign delays to VM batch start them in layers Hyper-V had startup priority since 2012... fully configurable... startup action and startup delay. This is inaccurate. There is not a priority. Hyper has only ever had this. Okay, technically incorrect.... I'll give you that. The point I was trying to make, was you can artificially set priority VM booting by adjusting the "startup delay" for each VM.

@travisdh1 said in Backup Systems without on-site external storage: @scottalanmiller said in Backup Systems without on-site external storage: @black3dynamite said in Backup Systems without on-site external storage: @scottalanmiller said in Backup Systems without on-site external storage: @black3dynamite said in Backup Systems without on-site external storage: @obsolesce said in Backup Systems without on-site external storage: I've recently come across Restic and looks great: Site: https://github.com/restic/restic Documentation: https://restic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ I haven't tried it yet, but it's on my list to try on my KVM server using Google's cloud as a test. I’ve only tested it with backing up nextcloud user data and it’s been working great so far. What are you backing up to? I only tried an external hard drive and sftp to a Linux Server. I would like to try Backblaze. I would like to check out Wasabi. At first glance, https://wasabi.com/pricing/ looks like it could be a little cheaper than B2. Would definitely be cheaper if you need to download significant amounts often. That was its selling point - a bit cheaper than even B2, but with full S3 compatibility.

Interesting read. I hope I never need to use it. Though, I would rather have it and not need it...

@phlipelder said in Hyper-V Server 2016 guest licensing question: The guests on an OEM licensed host can be moved to another host whether it's licensed OEM, VL, or Retail so long as the destination host is licensed to receive those guests. That makes no sense. That's not moving it, that's buying it twice. Very different things. That's like "can I move my house from here to there"? People mean take the same house and shift its location. Not buy a second house in the new location and give up the old one.

@oksana I doubt you will find the audience you are looking for at reddit, but good luck.

Go figure...CentOS-7 UEFI vm on Windows Server 2019 "Preview" w Hyper-V installs no problem!!!

@vhinzsanchez Containers are lighter and faster. And they are a type of virtual machine, Type-C virtualization. So things like performance and density alone are reasons that containers are popular.

You can restart the Hyper-V Virtual Machine Management service or the Windows Remote Management service and it should work.

@scottalanmiller said in KVM & Networking: I have currently maybe 65 VMs on my KVM host, they each have their own IPs and are bridged. But there is a firewall and NAT sitting in front of all of it. This is really how it is most cases regardless of hypervisor. The only exception is in non-production when dealing with KVM + Wireless NIC... I haven't had time to see if I could get it to bridge somehow, so I'm stuck with NAT on my laptop. But, this is not an issue with servers, as they don't use wireless and this seems to be specific to wireless.

@travisdh1 said in Storage Setup for KVM: @emad-r said in Storage Setup for KVM: @eddiejennings keep your images and ISOs in the default location of /var/lib/libvirt/images/? Yes I do, but I create 2 new folders there, iso and vm. Fedora will be presented a 4 TB block device ? Why dont you separe that a little, and have more fun. Block device I assume DAS, if no why dont you make the storage reliable and robust, and make it its own server, like another fedora or centos install, with RAID 10 and the simplest option to share is NFS, and this way you can have many KVMs and the migration feature will actually work, and you can do RAID on just /var, and you scan scale easily with KVM nodes + KVM nodes can be state file, think salt stack, and you can treat them as pure compute nodes. Because @EddieJennings is talking about his home lab, which will consist of a single 1U server. That hadn't been mentioned in this thread. Bah! Folks should be able to read my mind ;). There were some good ideas in this thread though. What I decided on was giving enough space to / live comfortably, and gave everything else to /var.

@eddiejennings said in Determining resources for hypervisor: @black3dynamite said in Determining resources for hypervisor: Instead of using Fedora as a firewall VM, how about using VyOS? https://wiki.vyos.net/wiki/User_Guide I was thinking of that as well, since the OS for the ERLs. EdgeOS and VyOS are cousins, both descended from Vyatta.

@tim_g said in Networking and 1U Colocation: fail2ban Fail2ban does nothing with key based access. It's denied before fail2ban even sees it.

@krisleslie said in Adding additional Drive to XenServer host, get error: @black3dynamite i use 1 hdd I meant virtual disks. VM1 with virtual disk 1 = OS and virtual disk 2 = data

@dustinb3403 said in Virtualizing Your Cudatel Appliance: @scottalanmiller said in Virtualizing Your Cudatel Appliance: Go ahead, download FreePBX and start playing with it. You could have installed it while reading this article! Any good installation guides here on ML? @JaredBusch has a great series of posts for FreePBX here. https://mangolassi.it/topic/11805/freepbx-13-setup-guide

@olivier Thanks for the feedback. Ok... so I see that @julien-f just pushed out new versions of xo-server and xo-web. Anyone care to elaborate on how we could properly script this so that a week from now you could pull the source from this particular point in time?

Hi Kelsey, First of all, as previously mentioned in the thread, the IPOD scenario is absolutely atrocious no matter how you look at it. You pay more to get more hardware to manage to get lower resiliency. Here is a very short paper on why it's particularly important to have HA or FT in a virtual inrastructure: https://www.starwindsoftware.com/fault-tolerance-and-high-availability-page A way to play around IPOD is replicating local storage across the hypervisor hosts. Here is a doc describing how it's done: https://www.starwindsoftware.com/whitepapers/starwind-virtual-san-whitepaper.pdf Also, our forums are pretty helpful and you can ask different virtualization, storage, HA questions there: https://forums.starwindsoftware.com