Reconsidering ProxMox
-
@Dashrender said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
This is what I'm wondering. It sounds like "being weird", trying to work around a perfectly working solution for no particular reason. If I was building my own system from scratch, would I build with qcow2? Probably. But if I choose ProxMox would I try to get under the hood and change the guts, no.
If all you know is the manual system, using something that is appliance based can be a hard mindset to get into...of course one should get there, sometimes just need a reminder.
This. The post driving this part of the discussion was specifically about someone coming from the vanilla DIY KVM scenario.
-
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
WTF
-
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
If they have to run on Hyper-V, let it by Hyper-V and don't muck around with that sort of nightmare.
-
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
So can I get my Hyper-V VHDX to run on proxmox through an embedded Hyper-V hypervisor? Cause that would be great to do as I have a few systems that need to remain on Hyper-V for reasons I can't dig into atm.
If they have to run on Hyper-V, let it by Hyper-V and don't muck around with that sort of nightmare.
Jared got it (I think).
-
@Dashrender said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@travisdh1 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The method of creating a volume group on the thinpool and creating the qcow2 files in that works for me. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts on whether that's the right thing to do.
Nothing wrong with that at a technical level, but makes no sense to try to work around ProxMox' mechanisms if using ProxMox.
So I'm wondering what I've missed. You use qcow2 on lvm-thin but I don't seem to have that option unless I create directory storage on top of the lvm-thin volume.
I'll keep playing around.Why do you even care about qcow2 or lvm-thin in the first place? Click on the button that creates a vm within Proxmox and just use the default settings.
This is what I'm wondering. It sounds like "being weird", trying to work around a perfectly working solution for no particular reason. If I was building my own system from scratch, would I build with qcow2? Probably. But if I choose ProxMox would I try to get under the hood and change the guts, no.
If all you know is the manual system, using something that is appliance based can be a hard mindset to get into...of course one should get there, sometimes just need a reminder.
Or just stick to manual if you are comfortable with that already. No need to move to an appliance.
-
Well since I use this forum a lot and I don't want to be seen as 'weird' I'll try to explain where I was coming from.
Yes I've been using vanilla KVM for a few years and I've always used qcow2. There was some talk about qcow2 earlier in the conversation with stacksofplates being quite positive about their advantages and then SAM saying that he uses qcow2 on lvm-thin mostly and it was the default for Proxmox.
So I thought - those guys generally know what they are talking about, let me see if I can make a qcow2 on lvm-thin.
But proxmox wouldn't let me until I created some directory storage on the thinpool.
Ok great that works - but that seems a little strange - let me ask the guys and gals on the forum what they think.
And here we are.As regards moving to an appliance - I'm comfortable with KVM but I run our VM infrastructure mostly on my own. On occasions where I'm on holiday or otherwise unavailable, it would be helpful if at least a couple of others could administer the system (particularly backups).
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Well since I use this forum a lot and I don't want to be seen as 'weird' I'll try to explain where I was coming from.
Not that you seem weird, just this one thing is what we call "being weird", or at least feels like it.
We all act weird sometimes. -
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
and then SAM saying that he uses qcow2 on lvm-thin mostly and it was the default for Proxmox.
I said that? I must have mispoke.
-
@Doyler3000 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
As regards moving to an appliance - I'm comfortable with KVM but I run our VM infrastructure mostly on my own. On occasions where I'm on holiday or otherwise unavailable, it would be helpful if at least a couple of others could administer the system (particularly backups).
Totally makes sense. I'm the same. We have a much larger pool of people for ProxMox support than we do for non-ProxMox KVM support. It's nice to let the bigger pool handle general tasks. And the web interface is really nice.
-
So, looking at Proxmox for a new deployment. I'll be dropping it on a spare laptop tomorrow to kick the tires.
Looking at Proxmox over KVM simply for the GUI backup features.
Anyone have any comments since they have fully released the backup stuff?
-
I have not tried the new Backup Server yet.
I do use the built-in PVE backup. -
A comment about the default install. With 6.3 on a system with a single disk, it used ext4 by default.
-
and logging in, it looks like LVM-thin is right there.
-
Uploading an ISO was simplicity. Not sure how/why the entire dicsussion above happened about using a USB....
-
@JaredBusch Oh, I assume because of this option?
Fuck that. No one does that anywhere. The feature exists in every Hypervisor. But seriously, no one uses it.
-
So what is the confusion about storage. It is not like you have an option when making a VM.
These were the defaults I saw.
-
Not sure why LSI is "default, but VirtIO was selected? I left it alone.
-
Going to have to RTFM soon, but WTF with a firewall enabled?
I do not want my hypervisor doing jack shit to my instances.
-
Wonder what they could do about Firefox thinking it is a pop up.
When Vultr pops the console, Firefox does not bitch like this.
