• sorter_plainview
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hey sorry for the confusion. What I meant is Proxmos is considered as a bare metal hypervisor and Virt manager is a hypervisor inside an OS, right?

    • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Technically no, both use kvm virtualization which is included in the Linux kernal, so both are “bare metal hypervisors” other wise know as class 1 hypervisors. Distinctions can be confusing 😂

      • sorter_plainview
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh dear… I really thought I understood what bare metal means… But looks like this is beyond my tech comprehension

        • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Bare metal is “kernel running on hardware” I think. KVM is a kernel feature, so the virtualization is done in kernel space (?) and on the hardware.

          • sorter_plainview
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well this can be a starting point of a rabbit hole. Time to spend hours reading stuff that I don’t really understand.

            • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              TL;DR: use what is in the kernel, without strange out of tree kernel modules like for VirtualBox, and use KVM, i.e. on fedora virt-manager qemu qemu-kvm

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      They both use KVM in the end, so they are both Type 1 hypervisors.

      Loading the KVM kernel module turn your kernel into the bare metal hypervisor.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      *Proxmox

      Virtual manager is a application that connects to libvirtd in the back end. Think of it as a web browser or file manager for VMs.

      Proxmox VE is an entire OS built for virtualization on dedicated servers. It also has support for clusters and live VM migrations between hosts. It is in essence a server OS designed to run in a data center (or homelab) of some kind. If is sort of equivalent to vSphere but they charge you per CPU socket for enterprise support and stability

      • sorter_plainview
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well this thread clearly established that I neither have technical knowledge and I don’t pay attention to spelling…

        Jokes aside this is a good explanation. I have seen admins using vSphere and it kind of makes sense. I’m just starting to scratch the surface of homelab, and now started out with a raspberry pie. My dream is a full fledged self sustaining homelab.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you ever want to get a Proxmox cluster go for 3-5 identical machines. I have a 3 totally different machines and it creates headaches

          • DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            What kind of headaches are you having? I’ve been running two completely different machines in a cluster with a pi as a Qdevice to keep quorum and it’s been incredibly stable for years.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              One device decided to be finicky and the biggest storage array is all on one system.

              It really sucks you can’t do HA with BTRFS. It is more reliable than ZFS due to licensing

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  OpenZFS is not GPL compatible so it can never be baked into the kernel in the same way BTRFS can. I’ve run into issues where I’ve needed to downgrade the kernel but if I do the system won’t boot.

                  Btrfs also doesn’t need any special software to work as it is completely native and baked in.