Are there any benefits of running Proxmox and virtualizing everything, vs having a host OS and running Docker and libvirt to host VMs for services that need it? I know that Proxmox does some storage management etc, but it seems like I could get everything it does with a well-managed host OS + ZFS/btrfs and using virtualization tools

  • KarlosKrinklebine@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    10 months ago

    I use both Proxmox and libvirt on Debian. I don’t use clustering. For me, the biggest advantages of PVE are:

    • Good VNC and serial console support integrated into the web interface. (Could probably get something similar with libvirt using Guacamole, but PVE makes it super easy).
    • Good VM snapshot management. I’ve found libvirt snapshot management to be pretty limited and/or buggy, and I’ve had to resort to directly operating on qcow2 files.

    On the other hand, there are a couple things I like more about libvirt:

    • Good support for SR-IOV NICs. libvirt lets you create a pool of VFs and automatically assign a free VF to a VM. (It’s a little surprising to me that PVE doesn’t do better in this area.)
    • Simpler with fewer moving parts to break.

    I use libvirt for my most critical VMs (network infra like router, DNS, and DHCP). I strongly prefer PVE for anything where I’m going to be interacting with VMs regularly, like testing or lab setups.

    • HoustonBOFH@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      This… It is ease vs control. If you have needs inside the box Proxmox has planned for, it is very easy. But if you want to step outside that box, you are in for a world of surprise. I install Proxmox for clients that do not have solid Linux chops. I run KVM/libvirt on my own stuff. And if you need a web front end, oVirt exists…