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

      • Cylian91460@alien.topBEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        It’s recommended bare metals not vm. Home assistants often require the latest feature, and some of those features may not work well behind any kind of virtualisation (especially docker’s network virtualisation). Running it on a VM is definitely better than running it in an out dated environment (like debian) but it’s not perfect.

        • FateOfNations@alien.topBEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          Running Home Assistant OS in a virtual machine using the provided VM images is a supported configuration.

          From ADR-0015: Installation Method: Home Assistant OS:

          Supported Hypervisors

          The Home Assistant Operating System can be run on a Hypervisor and thus be run as a virtual machine. The following Hypervisors are supported:

          • KVM/QEMU
          • VirtualBox
          • VMWare
          • Xen

          We will provide documentation for the following systems build on top of these technologies:

          • Proxmox (KVM/QEMU based)
          • Unraid (KVM/QEMU based)
          • VirtualBox
          • VMWare
  • KarlosKrinklebine@alien.topBEnglish
    0·
    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.

  • POFusr@alien.topBEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    How important is it that the machine also host local graphical sessions? Asking because if I recall correctly, Promox doesn’t offer a GUI by default. If you’re going to use the machine for anything else, I feel like one would end up installing and configuring more things, in order to also have a graphical environment in Proxmox, than they would to install the preq’s for libvirt/KVM under Debian with a graphical install (et al.). Of course, there isn’t a snappy web-GUI if you go the libvirt/KVM route (by default), but virsh CLI and Virtual Machine Manager GUI, offer similar functionality.