Please wait...
I might upgrade on my test machine. I've seen people complaining about it breaking things.
I missed the notice, but PVE 7 is out
ooo not good.
I suppose a fresh install if it solves those problems isn't bad. Just build new server and add it to the cluster, hot move your VMs over ( or if you can have down time, just shut them down and copy them to some storage, rebuild all the hosts then copy them back ) then shut down 6.x, then rinse repeat until all 6.x are gone ( i know, a little more involved than that, but the idea is there )
I might upgrade on my test machine. I've seen people complaining about it breaking things.
It is one of those cases where I don't see why I should upgrade if what I have is working. At least, not presently.
I do have the luxury of building out a test unit, migrating the currently running VM to it, then just swapping that out with the production hardware.
ooo not good.
I suppose a fresh install if it solves those problems isn't bad. Just build new server and add it to the cluster, hot move your VMs over ( or if you can have down time, just shut them down and copy them to some storage, rebuild all the hosts then copy them back ) then shut down 6.x, then rinse repeat until all 6.x are gone ( i know, a little more involved than that, but the idea is there )
I might upgrade on my test machine. I've seen people complaining about it breaking things.
Take it as an opportunity to learn KVM for real and drop the crutches!
virt-manager is all you really need.
On desktops that is what i use.. its what im using for my 'shop' vm.
But on servers, i still stick with PVE ( used to be xenserver.. until citrix started playing games. tho there is a oss fork, i still didnt trust them )
I looked at Virt-Manager - and it looks like a lot of "lite" Linux GUI type solutions. Very bare and minimal.
I like a little more polished of an interface - and PVE is pretty comparable to Xenserver or ESXi in fit and finish. If I have to sit in front of something - it should be aesthetically pleasant to work with.
On desktops that is what i use.. its what im using for my 'shop' vm.
But on servers, i still stick with PVE ( used to be xenserver.. until citrix started playing games. tho there is a oss fork, i still didnt trust them )
To be fair, its what its meant to be. Enough GUI to get the job done. If you need advanced stuff its CLI. But i will say that on the machines i run it on ( 'workstations' ), other than copying around images for backups and such, i dont think i have ever needed anything that it cant do via the interface.
But i do agree, PVE is more advanced, but its also meant to be more data center oriented.
I looked at Virt-Manager - and it looks like a lot of "lite" Linux GUI type solutions. Very bare and minimal.
I
Hmm pve7 is based on Debian 11, which has not been released yet.
While i have been using it on my desktop ( and my RK3399 boards to get OSS GPU support ) for a while now without issue, i donno if that is a good idea for a production server environment.
I looked at Virt-Manager - and it looks like a lot of "lite" Linux
GUI type solutions. Very bare and minimal.
Well, if you're going to keep trashing Linux then I suggest you use Hyper-V.
:|
Virt-Manager is *intended* to be "very bare and minimal". It's simple and it gets the job done without creating any dependencies on itself. This is because it's just a front end to libvirtd on the host system(s).
It's also why I stopped using PVE. As beautiful as it is, it insists on running KVM directly instead of going through libvirtd. You could compare this to all the people who wrote software in the early 1980's that accessed the IBM PC hardware directly instead of strictly adhering to the MS-DOS system calls. Sure, you could do some really neat things, but you just made your software incompatible with non-IBM hardware.
It's your choice, of course. I prefer knowing that my virtual machines just sit there and run in the background even when the management software isn't active.
2021-07-16 12:09 from Nurb432
Subject: Re: PVE 7
On desktops that is what i use.. its what im using for my 'shop'
vm.
But on servers, i still stick with PVE ( used to be xenserver.. until
citrix started playing games. tho there is a oss fork, i still didnt
trust them )
I am not that familiar with Xen. I have the memory of using it as a backend of some prettyfied GUI solution some years ago, and that is it.
Which games do you say Citrix is playing?
Short version is they went the 'its all free and you can pay us support'. That was the standard for many years, making it viable for people who didnt need support but liked the product. ( like me ) Then a few years ago they started removing features from the 'free' version.
Since it was based on RedHat, there was a team that rebuilt it all from source and added those pieces back in. Seemed to work out well, and its viable, but its still a long term risk. they built their business off it as they sell some sort of web front end to manage it. And i guess they saw the ramification of losing customers since people were paying for them but not citrix. Last i heard citrx only supported a windows management GUI, in a VM. ludicrous.
But as soon as they started dropping features, i went elsewhere. I had been using kvm on workstations, so that was the logical place to go. After looking at several options, PVE seemed like the best choice for an 'enterprise' environment. Was a pain to migrate my customers, and the features lost at first i didnt need, but well worth it anyway. ( i still have a couple left, i had pretty much stopped doing work on my own. Too busy at the office to be fair to them )
I hate the word "cloud" by the way. It's too ambiguous.
I think that is intentional
I hate the word "cloud" by the way. It's too ambiguous.
Oh,and if you have bandwidth for it. running virt-manager and connecting to a remote server that is running a desktop VM, is usable. Its not like the 'real thing' but good enough. to get a tiny bit more i have run X2GO across, but that is extra overhead.
its how i get around the problem of losing internal network as soon as i connect to the office VPN on the shop VM. Before they did that, RDP was the most viable option, which of course is faster.
I'm not trashing Linux - I'm simply saying that there is a Linux paradigm that isn't my preference for user and administration experiences. In fact, the cool thing about Linux is that it has the flexibility to be as bare, spartan, minimal and low resource as you desire, while also being as much graphical interface overkill as I desire.
It simplifies management for me - in that I do not have to relearn obscure things I don't work with daily every time I revisit the platform or it requires maintenance or admin intervention. It involves resource overhead for that convenience - but it is a trade off that works well for me, and I am not bothered (or probably even aware) of the downsides in most cases.
I've got a hot spare ready to take a backup and return to the last known good backup image in a matter of minutes, just ready to go. Because I don't want to be a Linux Admin guru - I want to run a BBS for the handful of users who call in to it.
I do other things on the ACTUAL Linux VM that runs Citadel that you would consider a waste of resources and unnecessary overhead too - solely for my convenience. I could make it far more lean and efficient and minimal - all of it - but those extra cycles are all burned to make things EASIER for me. I don't have the training wheels because I can't ride the bike without them, but because it makes it less work to ride the bike in general. ;)
I looked at Virt-Manager - and it looks like a lot of "lite" Linux
GUI type solutions. Very bare and minimal.
Well, if you're going to keep trashing Linux then I suggest you use Hyper-V.
:|
Virt-Manager is *intended* to be "very bare and minimal". It's simple and it gets the job done without creating any dependencies on itself. This is because it's just a front end to libvirtd on the host system(s).
It's also why I stopped using PVE. As beautiful as it is, it insists on running KVM directly instead of going through libvirtd. You could compare this to all the people who wrote software in the early 1980's that accessed the IBM PC hardware directly instead of strictly adhering to the MS-DOS system calls. Sure, you could do some really neat things, but you just made your software incompatible with non-IBM hardware.
It's your choice, of course. I prefer knowing that my virtual machines just sit there and run in the background even when the management software isn't active.
I really wish PVE included a Kubernetes implementation. They insist on sticking with LXC. Nobody uses that anymore. Virtualization + Ceph/RADOS is already a great start.
Not questioning the statement, but i wonder if they have ever taken a poll on people using LXC over KVM with their product. It may be a mostly unused feature, legacy cruft.
I know i'm not, but i'm 1 person.
I really wish PVE included a Kubernetes implementation. They insist on sticking with LXC. Nobody uses that anymore. Virtualization + Ceph/RADOS is already a great start.
It looks like they're still around: "Each container performs and executes exactly like a stand-alone server; a container can be rebooted
independently and have root access, users, IP addresses, memory, processes, files, applications,
system libraries and configuration files."
So the idea is that the containers are intended to look like full virtual machines, rather than small environments to execute a single application.
The big restriction, of course, is that the guest operating system must be running the same kernel as the host operating system, so if you have a mixed Linux/Windows stack it isn't the right solution. If you're willing to live with that restriction, though, it's far more efficient on memory usage than a full hypervisor.
