RESOLVED: VirtualMachine and Container

Chat
, ,
1

I wonder why Nethserver decide to revive PHPVirtualBox instead of going with KVM which is more performant and is suported by cockpit ?

2

it was on my own I did for fun, but indeed the project is not much alive, if you find an UI for KVM please bring it to the light, I think there is not much

3

Cockpit-machines is not that bad. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
4

I think they are working also for podman IIRC

5

yes cockpit-machines is simple but do the job

I believe cockpit-container will definitely adopt podman,

image

I feel, RedHat is becoming more and more a protector of the OpenSource than ever, while Ubuntu simply try to make is trace by inventing a bunch of not so good technology.

Question for @stephdl and @filippo_carletti

so if I install libvirtd+kvm on my nethserver 7 it would be possible to upgrade it to NetherServer 8 ?

I actually manage my VM remotely with Virtual Machine Manager

1 Like
6

at then end I think I’ll play safe and keep NethServer as a VM under proxmox.
since I passthrough USB, HardDrives and VideoCard to different VM
i’ll keep it simple and use the right tool for the right job.

7

why invent again the wheel, proxmox does well

1 Like
8
  1. to save some bites of memory by removing layer
  2. because I don’t use LXC
  3. because proxmox encapsulate libvirtd
    :wink:
9

Hi

No problems, if you prefer choosing the worse tool… :slight_smile:

Full Virtualization gives the VM max 80-90% of the Host, loss=10-20%
no matter if Hyper-V, VMWare ESXi, XEN or Virtualbox or even KVM.

LXC has a loss of 1-5%!!!

For 20-30 clients, I’m running as LXC:

  • Zoneminder for 10 Axis Cams, 4 of them HD…
  • FOG-Project for cloning and imaging
  • SQL-Ledger booking
  • and others

I always run NethServer as KVM under Proxmox, stability of Proxmox is almost unbeatable!

My 2 cents
Andy

10

following your logic, you also choose the worst tool :stuck_out_tongue:
and you should run nethserver under lxd

BTW

  • LXC is the grand father of docker which is container not full virtualization
  • the alternative to KVM is LXD not LXC which is not available under proxmox
11

@JOduMonT

No, Proxmox is better, also the most people you have communicated on this forum use Proxmox, and share my opinion.

I use this professionally!

Docker is as much an improvement to LXC like Vista was to XP, or Win8 to Win7.
It introduces too many IPs into the system including rules, firewalling etc.
Also, according to the “pure” Docker theory, splitting up every service into it’s own Docker, just becomes less stable, as too many dependencys are introduced.
A lot of the interna of available Dockers are very badly documented, when it comes to internal networks.
Two cases of IPs introduced into the network - and killing off Internet when started - do NOT speak for Docker. That does NOT happen with Full Virtualization or LXC… These two only introduce IPs you’ve assigned, or DHCP for the single NIC.

It’s OK to play with Docker, maybe a minimal professional use is also OK, but in my opinion, the Docker guys need to rethink a lot of things!

But thanks for the flowers!

:slight_smile:

12

Ok, Bunny-ProxMox and Bunny-Docker, you have your own favorite flavor. Don’t catfight, please :slight_smile:
Podman is already RedHat choice.

My question is: can container and VM be managed/hosted by the same NethServer setup?
Also: does this setup have any user viable cases?

4 Likes
13

let’s talk about container and VM

  • Univention support both (KVM/Docker), the project just didn’t old well

  • ClearOS also support both (KVM/Docker); docker via their project ClearGlass

  • FreeNAS support both (bhyve); but the docker part is in reallity RancherOS inside a VM

  • OpenMediaVault support both (VirtualBox/Docker); and they tend to move apps into the docker

  • LXC is obviously stronger and in Proxmox they push the unprivileged which is great but also available for docker but the docker community is very convenient you could almost find anything (if you don’t really care about the security) while with LXC you are almost on your own.

IMO

the main show stopper for Nethserver and the capability of using container is the shorewall

at the end yes everyone a preference you love boy I love girl, I prefer pink you prefer blue…
my question become irreverant because
KVM still available and supported on Nethserver (Virtual machines — NethServer 7 Final)

And I don’t really understand why @Andy_Wismer the side tracker troll me
:wink:

14

FreeNAS supports containers called jails. It also supports VMs, into which you can install pretty much any Windows or Linux flavor you want, on which you can do pretty much whatever you want, including run Docker if that’s your thing (though I have yet to see the attraction). The dedicated RancherOS VM went away with FreeNAS 11.3, which IMO was a good thing, but you can still install RancherOS, or Ubuntu, or CentOS, or whatever other flavor of Linux you want to do Docker on. Though IMO, FreeNAS isn’t a great choice of hypervisor.

15

did you tried nethserver-portainer, I recall some work on it.

16

I’m more a docker-compose and docker-compose.override.yml guy and I don’t like to have too many webgui for the same server

But from your statement I could/should understand the docker/shorewall interaction is not an issue anymore :wink:

17

yes and if you try it, the work under the hood is (quite) done, however you left the tcp port of container for an IP in another network

i am not sure about the state of the rpm, alpha, beta

18

on which repo ?

Install the nethserver-docker package from nethforge-testing ?

19

ping @mrmarkuz

1 Like
20

Just for reference to make things clear. The discussion is about comparing apples to pears.
While Virtualbox is a type2 hypervisor, KVM is a type1 hypervisor. They serve different needs.
In the case of NethServer, a type 1 hypervisor is a layer under NethServer (for instance KVM/ProxMox). and a type 2 hypervisor (phpVirtualbox) is installed in/on NethServer. IMO a very big difference.

2 Likes