Reconsidering ProxMox

stacksofplates

@mroth911 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

PROXMOX with LIZARD FS? ANYONE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED IT.

I have not (but haven't tried). It doesn't appear to be a supported thing from ProxMox. They don't reference it anywhere, only LizardFS does. It's all CLI driven it looks like. Doesn't look like you get any GUI control like with Ceph.

LizardFS mentions in their documentation that they run the chunk server on the ProxMox nodes in functional testing, developemnt, and "some private setups" using LXC containers as the chunk server. So it doesn't sound like it's a recommended thing to do. I'm not sure in the other setup whether they have the chunk servers as completely separate physical machines or if it's a VM with QoS for the disks or something else. Not much out there on it.

scottalanmiller

We've been deploying more and more Proxmox and so far, knock on wood, we are remaining happy.

StuartJordan

I'm quite happy with it as well, I've deployed a couple of production servers using proxmox and all good so far as well

coliver

@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

We've been deploying more and more Proxmox and so far, knock on wood, we are remaining happy.

Are you deploying multi-node setups or just single nodes?

scottalanmiller

@coliver said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

We've been deploying more and more Proxmox and so far, knock on wood, we are remaining happy.

Are you deploying multi-node setups or just single nodes?

Single node. It's a rare customer that would need more than one node.

coliver

@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@coliver said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

We've been deploying more and more Proxmox and so far, knock on wood, we are remaining happy.

Are you deploying multi-node setups or just single nodes?

Single node. It's a rare customer that would need more than one node.

Got it.

travisdh1

@black3dynamite said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

To get rid of the no subscription message pop up

https://johnscs.com/remove-proxmox51-subscription-notice/
sed -i.bak "s/data.status !== 'Active'/false/g" /usr/share/javascript/proxmox-widget-toolkit/proxmoxlib.js && systemctl restart pveproxy.service
Clear your browser cache.

Just did this today, still working. TYVM

black3dynamite

@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@black3dynamite said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
To get rid of the no subscription message pop up

https://johnscs.com/remove-proxmox51-subscription-notice/
sed -i.bak "s/data.status !== 'Active'/false/g" /usr/share/javascript/proxmox-widget-toolkit/proxmoxlib.js && systemctl restart pveproxy.service
Clear your browser cache.
Just did this today, still working. TYVM

This will make the changes after an update/upgrade.
https://github.com/foundObjects/pve-nag-buster

biggen

@scottalanmiller What’s your storage configuration like?

I’ve been playing with it on ZFS Raid 1 mirror. Proxmox OS and VMs all on same mirror. Performance is “OK”. Not as good as MD with same setup though.

Wonder if it’s better to create separate Raid 1 ZFS pools. One for the Proxmox OS and one for the VMs.

VoIP_n00b

@biggen said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@scottalanmiller What’s your storage configuration like?

I’ve been playing with it on ZFS Raid 1 mirror. Proxmox OS and VMs all on same mirror. Performance is “OK”. Not as good as MD with same setup though.

Wonder if it’s better to create separate Raid 1 ZFS pools. One for the Proxmox OS and one for the VMs.

Did you configure ZFS correctly? https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/ZFS_on_Linux#_limit_zfs_memory_usage What drives are you using?

biggen

@VoIP_n00b Its a lab for testing so no Enterprise drives. Just a pair of Samsung 970 Pros.

Box only has 32GB of RAM so that would mean that ZFS on Proxmox would be using at most 16GB of RAM for the ARC by default. Seems like ZFS needs a ton of RAM.

VoIP_n00b

@biggen said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

Seems like ZFS needs a ton of RAM.

You have to configure it

biggen

@VoIP_n00b I'll read over your link. I admit I haven't messed with it a ton. Kinda assumed it would work "out of the box" but looks like I need to tinker.

scottalanmiller

@biggen said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@scottalanmiller What’s your storage configuration like?

I’ve been playing with it on ZFS Raid 1 mirror. Proxmox OS and VMs all on same mirror. Performance is “OK”. Not as good as MD with same setup though.

Wonder if it’s better to create separate Raid 1 ZFS pools. One for the Proxmox OS and one for the VMs.

We don't use ZFS - slow and we don't want its features (few actually do.) LVM is what we use. What is making you want to look at ZFS? It's not meant for speed and has little generally purpose these days. It's not bad, but mostly it's deployed by accident when people aren't sure what it is. Then people swear by "features" that everything has thinking they are unique to ZFS.

ZFS is a great system, with niche applicability.

scottalanmiller

@biggen said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

Box only has 32GB of RAM so that would mean that ZFS on Proxmox would be using at most 16GB of RAM for the ARC by default. Seems like ZFS needs a ton of RAM.

ZFS can use a lot of RAM, but has no actual requirement for it. And it's important to recognize that ZFS is three products under one name, using it as your filesystem is very different from using it as your RAID, which is very different from using it as your LVM. Each component has different capabilities and caveats and all are separate, just like they always are.

Most people intend to use ZFS in a way that would have to use a lot of RAM. But nothing forces you to do that.

scottalanmiller

@biggen said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

@VoIP_n00b I'll read over your link. I admit I haven't messed with it a ton. Kinda assumed it would work "out of the box" but looks like I need to tinker.

It does, ZFS is tuned by default for the purposes where it is most useful. Which is NOT how 99% of people would want to use it and why it is almost never the right platform for any normal business.

If you tune ZFS to try to mimic MD / LVM / XFS... why not use them as they are faster, better known, more mature and easier? Unless there is something specific to ZFS that you need. Which is normally RAID 7. Using it for RAID 1 puts you automatically in the "never seen someone want to do this before" category.