Reconsidering ProxMox
-
@warren-stanley said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Are you using hardware RAID or ZFS? I'm interested as the Proxmox wiki doesn't encourage mdraid.
Meh, I'm still not sure I would look at ProxMox because of all the shit like that over the years.
But to answer your question, use hardware raid giving you blind swap to skip it mattering to the Hypervisor. That is the same decision no matter the hypervisor.
Anyone that wants to manage the raid within the hypervisor is crazy. That never makes good business sense, IMO.
-
Yeah, Proxmox has been on the edge of my radar for years, occasionally I've run up a box to have a look at its progress - never keeping it for actual production use. I've hesitated revisiting recently, for concerns similar to what is echoed in this thread and other past experiences.
-
I've been using proxmox for over a year now. I have read past threads and understand some of issues were not good but, the product itself is good. I wasn't too happy what happend with xencenter and it pretty much pushed everyone to use xcp-ng. Companies can be arses at times. look at some of shit Microsoft has pulled in the past.
-
The only hold up I have is full backups. That is simply not practical for the real world.
Sure, in a better world, state and data only make this better for many things, but even then, not all.
But in the real world we have old bespoke software and a myriad of other poor practices that prevent moving businesses to a place where only full backups would be a valid use case.
It is why I am still on Hyper-V + Veeam for clients.
-
@JaredBusch I agree, I backup inside the VM. Yes not great and not as good as incremental backups from VM level.
-
@JaredBusch said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
The only hold up I have is full backups. That is simply not practical for the real world.
I feel like it is more practical than people think. Modern "app specific" backups not withstanding, between compression and dedupe and low cost storage using full backups can work for some businesses. All, no, of course not. But when comparing Proxmox' full backups to the incrementals that we were doing before using commercial tools we are expecting (we don't have numbers on this yet, that will take months) that the cost of the additional storage will be roughly equal to the cost of the tooling that we are removing.
Not some big win, but not as bad as it sounds.
-
@StuartJordan said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@JaredBusch I agree, I backup inside the VM. Yes not great and not as good as incremental backups from VM level.
Well, that's not necessarily true. VM level backups have no way, without in-the-VM hooks to specific applications, to back up applications. Same with in VM agents. There are nice features about blind backups from lower in the stack, but in all cases, no matter where the backup is taken from, you either need a stateless box or you need some inside agent mechanism to flush data all the way from the application to the disk.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@Pete-S said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@matteo-nunziati said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Don't forget openbsd:
(https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq16.html)That is bhyve I believe. Vmm is the kernel module of bhyve.
Ah, that would explain why I didn't know about it
Not exactly, look at this presentation from 2016 (pdf)
https://bhyvecon.org/bhyvecon2016-Mike.pdf -
Since I normally using Debian or Ubuntu LTS has a container. I discovered an issue with using fedora 31 container image. After creating the container, the network of that container will not work anymore because of the systemd version. Need to add
lxc.mount.auto: systo/etc/pve/lxc/<vm-id>.conf.Also when you use fedora 31 container image SELinux is disabled and there's no firewalld or iptables. Not exactly a big deal since you can use Proxmox firewall to manage VMs and containers.
-
@black3dynamite said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Since I normally using Debian or Ubuntu LTS has a container. I discovered an issue with using fedora 31 container image. After creating the container, the network of that container will not work anymore because of the systemd version. Need to add
lxc.mount.auto: systo/etc/pve/lxc/<vm-id>.conf.Also when you use fedora 31 container image SELinux is disabled and there's no firewalld or iptables. Not exactly a big deal since you can use Proxmox firewall to manage VMs and containers.
Yeah that's the same with their cloud image. It's been like that for a while. They are probably assuming you're using the providers security groups to stop network access.
-
After reading Proxmox documentation, I now know why my swap is more than my RAM when using a container image.
If you assign your container 1GiB of RAM and 512 MiB of swap. The total swap is 1.5 GiB.
SWAP (1.5 GiB) = RAM (1 GiB) + SWAP (512 MiB)
-
Spun up a nested Proxmox instance.
Really liking the built-in backup & the fact that I can snapshot a UEFI vm! -
@FATeknollogee said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
Spun up a nested Proxmox instance.
Really liking the built-in backup & the fact that I can snapshot a UEFI vm!I think its only possible because of using LVM snapshot.
-
When using UEFI, it will add a EFI disk too.
-
Proxmox full backup is not bad when your lxc containers is small.
-
@black3dynamite What if you have massive containers though?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@black3dynamite What if you have massive containers though?
I don't know since I don't use a lot of containers.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@black3dynamite What if you have massive containers though?
Who has that? What's a use case for massive containers?
-
@stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@DustinB3403 said in Reconsidering ProxMox:
@black3dynamite What if you have massive containers though?
Who has that? What's a use case for massive containers?
We do, for example. Not often, but when we need storage, containers are still better than a full VM if you don't need the extra overhead.
-
After adjusting the updates to the pve-no-subscription repo and updating (full-upgrade), I had an issue where no templates for Containers were available on the host, to "Download" (under pve -> local (pve) -> "Content" -> "Templates").
Apparently the list of available templates is updated daily through the "pve-daily-update timer".
I triggered and update manually (cause i'm impatient) via:
root@pve:~# pveam update...you can then check the list via:
root@pve:~# pveam availableAnd then I had templates to use under pve -> local (pve) -> "Content" -> "Templates".
Just spinning up a Debian 10 CT and VM now.
