virtualize all the things... ?
-
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
It was in use before I got here, and though we don't pay for it (we have to deal with annoying reminders, but otherwise it seems to work fine) it seems to work ok. What solution do you prefer?
In order?
- Hyper-V Server
- KVM (Fedora based)
- KVM (CentOS based)
Note: This is production preferences. Not lab.
-
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
It was in use before I got here, and though we don't pay for it (we have to deal with annoying reminders, but otherwise it seems to work fine) it seems to work ok. What solution do you prefer?
In order?
- Hyper-V Server
- KVM (Fedora based)
- KVM (CentOS based)
Proxmox is a hypervisor? wat
-
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
It was in use before I got here, and though we don't pay for it (we have to deal with annoying reminders, but otherwise it seems to work fine) it seems to work ok. What solution do you prefer?
In order?
- Hyper-V Server
- KVM (Fedora based)
- KVM (CentOS based)
Proxmox is a hypervisor? wat
Yeah. .
-
@dustinb3403 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
It was in use before I got here, and though we don't pay for it (we have to deal with annoying reminders, but otherwise it seems to work fine) it seems to work ok. What solution do you prefer?
In order?
- Hyper-V Server
- KVM (Fedora based)
- KVM (CentOS based)
Proxmox is a hypervisor? wat
Yeah. .
I guess there is a reason this is the first time I've ever heard of it being brought up. I thought it worked in tandem with a hypervisor to make managing the VM's easier
-
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
It was in use before I got here, and though we don't pay for it (we have to deal with annoying reminders, but otherwise it seems to work fine) it seems to work ok. What solution do you prefer?
In order?
- Hyper-V Server
- KVM (Fedora based)
- KVM (CentOS based)
Proxmox is a hypervisor? wat
It's really just a management interface. It's how I trained myself on command line management because it'd mess things up for you when we were running it.
-
Yeah, it's just a management interface. It simplifies management somewhat.
-
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Yeah, it's just a management interface. It simplifies management somewhat.
That was my impression. I guess JB is just saying you don't need anything more than what hyper-v and KVM offers, which is true.
-
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Yeah, it's just a management interface. It simplifies management somewhat.
That was my impression. I guess JB is just saying you don't need anything more than what hyper-v and KVM offers, which is true.
ProxMox is a package, like XenServer. It takes KVM and some container tech and merges them together under a single interface. It's a bit silly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Yeah, it's just a management interface. It simplifies management somewhat.
That was my impression. I guess JB is just saying you don't need anything more than what hyper-v and KVM offers, which is true.
ProxMox is a package, like XenServer. It takes KVM and some container tech and merges them together under a single interface. It's a bit silly.
And now defaults to ZFS if it wasn't bad enough before.
-
@stacksofplates said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@scottalanmiller said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Yeah, it's just a management interface. It simplifies management somewhat.
That was my impression. I guess JB is just saying you don't need anything more than what hyper-v and KVM offers, which is true.
ProxMox is a package, like XenServer. It takes KVM and some container tech and merges them together under a single interface. It's a bit silly.
And now defaults to ZFS if it wasn't bad enough before.
Oh yeah, I had heard that.
-
I would like to move away from proxmox, but haven't decided which direction to go. Also... making those migrations isn't easy when you are short on hardware. I do, however, like having an interface for day to day maintenance. I love the cli, but for some things a gui is nice. In my opinion, this is one of those things.
-
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
I would like to move away from proxmox, but haven't decided which direction to go. Also... making those migrations isn't easy when you are short on hardware. I do, however, like having an interface for day to day maintenance. I love the cli, but for some things a gui is nice. In my opinion, this is one of those things.
If I had that in place, I would stay with KVM. Just Install a Fedora 26 system and the virtualization.
Then Manage it from your Fedora desktop with virt-manager.
-
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
I would like to move away from proxmox, but haven't decided which direction to go. Also... making those migrations isn't easy when you are short on hardware. I do, however, like having an interface for day to day maintenance. I love the cli, but for some things a gui is nice. In my opinion, this is one of those things.
Depending on which version of proxmox you have and if you stick with KVM, you can backup the *.qcow2 images and import the disk image using virt-manager or by cli.
-
@black3dynamite said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
I would like to move away from proxmox, but haven't decided which direction to go. Also... making those migrations isn't easy when you are short on hardware. I do, however, like having an interface for day to day maintenance. I love the cli, but for some things a gui is nice. In my opinion, this is one of those things.
Depending on which version of proxmox you have and if you stick with KVM, you can backup the *.qcow2 images and import the disk image using virt-manager or by cli.
You don't "import" disks. You simply attache them to a virtual machine.
-
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Then Manage it from your Fedora desktop
I think I'd rather not install an entire desktop to manage VMs. That seems like taking a step in the wrong direction to me.
-
@scottalanmiller said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@stacksofplates said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@scottalanmiller said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@wirestyle22 said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Yeah, it's just a management interface. It simplifies management somewhat.
That was my impression. I guess JB is just saying you don't need anything more than what hyper-v and KVM offers, which is true.
ProxMox is a package, like XenServer. It takes KVM and some container tech and merges them together under a single interface. It's a bit silly.
And now defaults to ZFS if it wasn't bad enough before.
Oh yeah, I had heard that.
The default is ext4 with the options to chose from ext3, ext4, xfs, and zfs (RAID0, RAID1, RAID10, RAIDZ-1, RAID-2, RAID-3).
-
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Then Manage it from your Fedora desktop
I think I'd rather not install an entire desktop to manage VMs. That seems like taking a step in the wrong direction to me.
You don't have to. You can manage from cli only. And if you just want virt-manager just have a VM on the host that you can X11 forward from.
-
@stacksofplates said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Then Manage it from your Fedora desktop
I think I'd rather not install an entire desktop to manage VMs. That seems like taking a step in the wrong direction to me.
You don't have to. You can manage from cli only. And if you just want virt-manager just have a VM on the host that you can X11 forward from.
If you have failover/replica/ha you can consider to use a vm to control the hypervisor
-
@matteo-nunziati said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@stacksofplates said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@bj said in virtualize all the things... ?:
@jaredbusch said in virtualize all the things... ?:
Then Manage it from your Fedora desktop
I think I'd rather not install an entire desktop to manage VMs. That seems like taking a step in the wrong direction to me.
You don't have to. You can manage from cli only. And if you just want virt-manager just have a VM on the host that you can X11 forward from.
If you have failover/replica/ha you can consider to use a vm to control the hypervisor
You can do it even without that. Single hosts are easy, and for the amount of resources it uses, you can just have one on each host as a fail safe. But as long as a single host is up you can control them all from a single Virt-Manager VM.
