I have an opportunity to learn something about Proxmox, which I never used. I don't see much discussion about the product, but the person I would be working with is using Proxmox and is content with the product. All of the VMs he has created are located on a remote server several miles away. He plans to create a dedicated box just for VMs. All but one of the VMs will be low usage and demand.

I am a long-time VirtualBox user so I am wondering what is different in design and philosophy, or what I need to think about differently.

Thanks.

Did you even go to proxmox.com and do some reading?Start learning KVM.
Regards.
Bill

I used Proxmox for a while to host a Windows server (10-15 users) and a couple of XP VMs. I was happy enough with it but I wanted software RAID which wasn't available at the time (it must be 4 or 5 years ago now). Not sure if that's changed now. I ended up nuking Proxmox and installing a barebones Slackware instead, and putting the VMs on software RAID-backed LVM volumes. I have found the KVM\Qemu combination on Slackware more resilient and of course easier to troubleshoot. The VMs feel faster as well. There is no web interface, as there is in Proxmox, so everything is done by hand - the KVM scripts, backups, and whatever else. KVM\Qemu is great if you aren't too fussed about graphics performance. It is very fast; indeed, on RAID-1 LVM volumes Server 2003 and XP felt much faster than they do on bare metal.

I have since moved on to Xen with NetBSD as a host for virtual machines. The reason? I am rapidly losing faith in the trustworthiness of the Linux kernel and the team looking after it. As a true hypervisor Xen seems to me a more trustworthy solution, and it is every bit as high-performing as KVM. Paravirtualised guests like Slackware run even faster than they do natively, but again, graphics performance isn't the best. To my mind Virtualbox is convenient for rapid provisioning of VMs, mainly to test out different platforms. I don't really consider it an enterprise-grade virtualisation platform, as Xen is. Just my opinion.

1 members found this post helpful.

Which is why VB works fine for me and other single users. I have no enterprise needs at the moment. I started this thread in the hopes a discussion would evolve because with my opportunity to learn a bit about proxmox, I will be moving ever so slightly into enterprise usage of VMs.

One nice thing is I can test in VB and convert an image to raw format, which then can be used in proxmox.

At the moment I don't have a spare box to install proxmox but I read where other users have installed the proxmox distro (Debian based) inside VirtualBox. That might provide me a nominal way to tinker with the web interface.

I've played with proxmox a few times and I like it. The target for it's use is a single host who's main focus is on virtual support. Very little effort is used trying to get this to be a usable distro for a desktop or such. It's install is meant to provide a base for vm's. It think it does that well.

Virtualbox is an add on product to what normally is a full distro for other reasons.

The commercial product more closely related to proxmox is esxi.

I watched a video today that helped me understand that. I now better appreciate at least that difference from type 2 virtualization such as VirtualBox.

So for the single home user, is KVM probably the most affordable way to tinker with "bare metal" virtualization?

KVM-Qemu is certainly affordable; KVM is right there in the kernel you have in Slackware, and Qemu is easily built from source or Slackbuild.

I believe there are GUI tools available for what some people consider a convenient way of provisioning virtual machines under KVM-Qemu. I never used them. Scripting is straightforward, although no doubt mine could be greatly improved. I'll show you what I use so you can get an idea of what happens with networking, which was my biggest stumbling block. Doing it this way helps you understand what's going on under the hood. Note that you need to have your virtual disks prepared in advance; I don't go through that here.

This is a script I use for loading the kvm modules with an AMD processor:
This is a script I use for fixing permissions:
The way I do networking with KVM is as follows: create a dummy interface and bridge for each machine, and attach the NIC on the virtual machine to this bridge. I'm sure there are better ways but this has worked well for me, without any slowdowns.

This is a script I use for bringing the bridge up for a VM:
And this is the tap1-up.sh script I use for bringing the first virtual NIC up:
Now your KVM host machine has a virtual bridge, br1, which has two NICs attached to it: the host machine's dummy NIC, dummy1, and the NIC for the first virtual machine we create, tap1. With ip forwarding enabled on the host, network traffic will flow freely to the outside world.

And, finally, this is a script I use to bring up the virtual machine itself:
I install the virtual guests on LVM volumes, which means little or no disk overhead. As an interesting aside, with Xen it is possible to install Slackware, for example, on a hard disk and also use that very same installation as a guest OS (domU) inside Xen. Brilliant, to my mind!

3 members found this post helpful.

You can use virt-manager, available on SBo to manage your qemu+kvm VMs using GUI

Yes, but as I stated in my post, configuring KVM-Qemu and Xen manually allows a new user to understand what is going on under the hood. Besides, it is not always the case that Yet-Another-GUI-Interface will do away with complexity. On the contrary, the long list of dependencies and sub-dependencies listed for virt-manager at SBo would be, for me at least, a far bigger headache than the scripting method I describe in my reply. Piling layers upon layers of software just to get a marginally-useful GUI interface for managing virtual machines is far from my idea of simplicity, and even further removed from my idea of a secure and lean system. You can be certain something like virt-manager with its rat's nest of dependencies will break long before those scripts break.

well, it was like that until some time ago, now virt-manager is a gtk+3 only interface and the list of dependencies is a lot shorter
I use this pretty much everywhere (home and production).
I used also proxmox in the past, but dropped it after a little while...

don't misunderstand me, I like a lot the scripting approach, but I'm not the only one that has to manage vms at work (and I don't want to be!).

And of course due to sqg, installing all those deps is so easy now

Perhaps, but usually there are at least two sides to a story. Often GUIs let a user know what features are available, without spending extraordinary time reading docs. A well designed GUI can teach just as well as docs, sometimes better. I have been around technical writing for more than three decades. One observation through those years is a well designed product does not need gobs of documentation. RTFM is a classic two-edged sword. Needing to read too much documentation often is an indication of poor usability. In the Linux world I see RTFM as a poor response to people asking for help. Focused usability would be a better long-term approach. Sometimes people ask questions with the primary intent of starting a conversation, and then the RTFM zealots come out of the wall chastising the person.

While extending one's knowledge often is a benefit, many people just want to drive the car from A to B. They don't care (or need) to understand the principles of combustion engines or drive trains.

I don't agree with this: nearly all of the manuals are so well-written that in general I think you can say that are the best source for understanding things.
I think RTFM is, most of the times, left away the rudeness of the expression, the best advice you can give.

A challenge with the classic RTFM response is the tendency toward a lack of compassion. A typical RTFM response easily can be viewed as "I don't have time for you --- go away." A challenge is not that people should not be guided toward reading and studying --- a form of self-empowerment, but often they do not know where to start. A person should not be told to study an advanced topic until they are coached with some basics and fundamentals.

In an online forum environment, "I don't have time for you --- go away" is resolved quite easily --- do not respond at all. Often I wonder why some people feel the need to pipe into a thread only to holler RTFM when they otherwise have nothing constructive to contribute. Does this make them feel superior? Do these same people tell their kids or grandmothers to RTFM or do they actually spend a moment talking about the question and nurturing relationships?

Long-time computer users tend to be supporters of RTFM. Not hard to understand why. Most long-time users started using computers back when computers were "crude" compared to today's computer systems. Many such users started as hobbyists, where a strong desire to learn already exists. Reading is a significant way to gain knowledge.

Many times I have experienced both sides. I am a long time computer user but I admit to many gaps in my computer knowledge. I always look for answers on my own. When I ask for help I don't expect to be spoon fed, but I don't ask unless I don't know where to start or have failed to find anything helpful on the topic. Telling people to RTFM more often than not is rude because there is an underlying presumption the person is lazy when more likely than not, the person has exhausted normal remedies. Another fallacy of the RTFM attitude is a presumption that everybody wants or needs to be a geek.

Usually I find answers on my own. Being around computers a long time helps develop a knack for that. But only a knack. Sometimes a person has little choice but to reach out and ask for help. Sometimes a person only seeks a conversation to get the juices flowing (the rubber duck syndrome).

Many times I have worked with people who are fun to be around, intelligent, but not computer savvy. RTFM only makes enemies in such environments. I can show somebody how to do something and achieve more satisfying results than I can by telling somebody to RTFM. Part of those results is strengthening relationships. Kind of a nice feeling to have somebody buy me a beer at the end of the day because I took time to help rather than respond with RTFM.

Presently I find myself working in a venture with people who are not computer savvy and never will be. There is a huge knowledge chasm between these types of users and those who visit online forums. An RTFM attitude would quickly end the venture. In a rural area, word of mouth advertising remains the common way to spread the word. RTFM has a place when working people, but requires compassion and gentleness to get users to use those avenues.

1 members found this post helpful.

Your point of view is just that: a personal point of view and nothing more. When I first took up Slackware I often referred to your now-offline website for information and tips, and found it enormously helpful, but it now seems you have become obsessed to the point of paralysis with catering to the lowest common denominator user. Nobody has barged into this thread snapping RTFM; if anything you are the only one dictating around here how things should be done.

You asked for advice in your first post about the difference in design and philosophy of Proxmox. In my reply I recommended that you look at the KVM-Qemu technology behind Proxmox and get an idea how it works. It is because I and many other Slackware users find this approach simpler than the GUI approach you constantly bleat on about that I recommended this option. If you prefer dragging a rat's nest of Red Hat-isms and Gnome-isms into Slackware (along with multiple other dependencies and sub-dependencies) just to get your button-clicking interface to KVM then go ahead and do it that way. Nobody has "piped in" here and ordered you to do it otherwise. I offered advice about a solution I consider more straightforward and more resilient than the GUI approach you prefer. If you don't want that then just use the Proxmox web interface or stay with Virtualbox. Just don't complain when there's nobody left to fix these when they break because everybody else has done what you recommended and abandoned the more demanding approach in favour of the mentally inert approach. If you want to take the information out of information technology go right ahead but don't be surprised when all that remains is a field full of automatons who don't know how to change a light bulb.

I am pretty much out of work now because the PC business has died, with users preferring their tablets and phones instead. And guess what: the very same users fly into a rage when I refuse to waste between 48 and 72 hours of my life fixing their touchy-feely devices for a pittance. If people want IT for the stupid then IT for the stupid is what they'll get, and neither you nor they should make any demands on those of us who are prepared to knuckle down and learn the ins and outs of IT if you or they are going to constantly belittle the hard work involved in making their computing experience easy. It takes an army of brains to keep networks running so they can go on Facebook and Twitter; don't constantly disparage this army just because your sympathies lie with the IT-illiterate. It's becoming more and more grating to listen to you banging this drum, and I say that as someone who appreciated and absorbed virtually every Slackware web page you put online years ago.

1 members found this post helpful.