Nginx VM
-
-
I always use the NetInstall and do minimal. Don't see any reason not to.
-
@brandon220 said in Nginx VM:
I always use the NetInstall and do minimal. Don't see any reason not to.
So do I. But there is no text install option in the menu.
There is no difference between the ISO versions on the ungodly slow speed during the install when using 512MB RAM.
The reason to do NetInstall is to not have to turn around and do a major update right after you install. I mean you would never install from the full ISO and then not immediately run
dnf upgradewould you? -
@JaredBusch said in Nginx VM:
I think the worst part about running with 512MB is installing Fedora. That was painful, even in text mode.
How do you get text mode on Fedora 28+ I don't see the menu choice.
Note: I never bothered to even Google. I just let the install chug along and do something else.
Hit tab while
Install Fedora 28/29is selected, and addinst.text
-
@JaredBusch said in Nginx VM:
I think the worst part about running with 512MB is installing Fedora. That was painful, even in text mode.
How do you get text mode on Fedora 28+ I don't see the menu choice.
Note: I never bothered to even Google. I just let the install chug along and do something else.
Hit tab while
Install Fedora 28/29is selected, and addinst.text
Thanks. Told you I never bothered to even check the Google.
-
I think the worst part about running with 512MB is installing Fedora. That was painful, even in text mode.
I've been giving a vm 2GB of ram to get through the install, and dropping it down to where I actually want it after it's done.
Of course, I normally deploy by cloning a snapshot, so I rarely need to go through the entire install process.
-
@travisdh1 said in Nginx VM:
I think the worst part about running with 512MB is installing Fedora. That was painful, even in text mode.
I've been giving a vm 2GB of ram to get through the install, and dropping it down to where I actually want it after it's done.
Of course, I normally deploy by cloning a snapshot, so I rarely need to go through the entire install process.
I am always doing it in different places. I have no reason to create a base image.
-
Always wondered what the min install size you can get away with.
I usually go for 80gb but will start reducing this
-
@hobbit666 said in Nginx VM:
Always wondered what the min install size you can get away with.
I usually go for 80gb but will start reducing thisFedora 27 minimal was ~1.2GB if I remember correctly.
-
Like others I use a 20GB vDisk if it is on local/colo infrastructure.
-
@travisdh1 said in Nginx VM:
@hobbit666 said in Nginx VM:
Always wondered what the min install size you can get away with.
I usually go for 80gb but will start reducing thisFedora 27 minimal was ~1.2GB if I remember correctly.
For the OS, but logs are the bigger component.
-
I think 20GB is outrageously large. 8GB or preferably 4GB.
-
@Pete-S said in Nginx VM:
I think 20GB is outrageously large. 8GB or preferably 4GB.
Thin provision though - so what does it really matter?
-
@Pete-S said in Nginx VM:
I think 20GB is outrageously large. 8GB or preferably 4GB.
Kind of, but thin provisioning means that we could also say that 8GB is unreasonably small. Why not have the buffer room "just in case" since it costs nothing?
-
@Dashrender said in Nginx VM:
@Pete-S said in Nginx VM:
I think 20GB is outrageously large. 8GB or preferably 4GB.
Thin provision though - so what does it really matter?
That's why we do it, avoid unnecessary limitations just in case a log explodes or we need to move files around or decide to change how something is used in the future. I've seen too many installs over the years have issues because they cut it as close as projected but then needed just a little extra space.
-
I saw that a lot on Ubuntu installs - The /boot partition that the installer created was always too small for the kernels after a few updates. Have yet to see that happen in Fedora.
-
@brandon220 said in Nginx VM:
I saw that a lot on Ubuntu installs - The /boot partition that the installer created was always too small for the kernels after a few updates. Have yet to see that happen in Fedora.
Fedora handles that space completely different. No issues there. Current Ubuntu does not, either. I prefer Fedora, but Ubuntu is fine. Issues of old versions don't affect the current one.
-
I had a heck of a battle last night with KVM. I converted to VMs built in HV 2019 to KVM on Fedora 29. Had to use dracut and reload the kernel to get them to boot. Took a while as I am not an expert by any means with KVM. I am upgrading a server tonight and still am on the fence about which hypervisor to go with on the new build. I like KVM because it is "lightweight" and has not given me any grief on guests that were built on the host and not migrated to it. I have a handful of HV hosts and no issues either. This new install will only be running Fedora guests. Leaning more towards KVM. I wish there was an "export" feature built into virt-manager.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Nginx VM:
@brandon220 said in Nginx VM:
I saw that a lot on Ubuntu installs - The /boot partition that the installer created was always too small for the kernels after a few updates. Have yet to see that happen in Fedora.
Fedora handles that space completely different. No issues there. Current Ubuntu does not, either. I prefer Fedora, but Ubuntu is fine. Issues of old versions don't affect the current one.
But I also have no reason to switch back to using it. Those issues are what drove my preference for CentOS back in the day.
-
@brandon220 said in Nginx VM:
This new install will only be running Fedora guests. Leaning more towards KVM. I wish there was an "export" feature built into virt-manager.
KVM really shines for Windows, actually. For pure Linux guests, the playing field is more level, rather than somehow weighted towards KVM. But if you have any Windows, then it is weighted more strongly towards KVM. KVM is the performance leader for Windows workloads.
But from your description, you have benefits to KVM, and not to Hyper-V. Your description of Hyper-V is only that it is "not that bad" or "good enough". But that's not the same as a benefit. Unless you have clear, solid benefits on Hyper-V to offset the benefits of KVM, is there really even a choice to make? KVM seems the absolute unquestioned winner based on your description. Not a winner by much, but a clear winner nonetheless.
