New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
New Features introduced
LVM Thin storage supported now
New mails introduced for events like Image & ISO download
Some UI related bugs fixed
New WHMCS Addon
This addon lets you modify whmcs products which were previously linked with virtualizor to support hypervisor instead.
On-going Developments
Working on 1-click SolusVM Import & WHMCS Import
Why LVM thin rather than raw or qcow2, lvm thin will just bottle neck performance with no real advantages?
We already have RAW enabled, LVM thin was a feature request. I already have read docs on RAW & QCOW2 over Thin.
Also Qcow2 is for file based storage which we don't actively support atm.
How is $9 per slave expensive? I guess it could be expensive if you are running some stupid cheap host node that only has like 16-32gb ram and then selling 8GB ram for $5 a piece. Even solus is $10 per slave.
$7.
by raw I meant raw .img file based storage, it is significantly faster and easier to work with and more stable than LVM thin provisioning.
I'll work on it next
Feature request completed, will be pushed this weekend.
https://hypervisor.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/HYPERVISOR/
A new wiki is up ( docs in progress )
-> File based storage ( RAW / Qcow2 ) implemented pushed to stable after testing.
-> Image creation from File based instances for cloning purpose implemented.
-> Implemented ability to specify custom bridge name for slaves from UI.
-> Letsencrypt related bugs fixed
Custom Bridge
This feature is specifically for people who are migrating from other panels where they would like to avoid downtime and leave it in the customer's hands to choose. There are limitations though like network suspensions / cloud firewall wont work unless the customer recycles the power of vps via hypervisor after migration.
Once again I thank testers for actively testing my panel and reporting issues/bugs.
Any plans to introduce the ability to provision NAT-only guests?
This would be a good replacement for Virtualizor for an upcoming project
NAT only with a internet gateway? possible to do so. Something like 1 public IP + n number of ports per nat vps right?
Not doable right away but yes can add to road map.
Yes, we will be using 1 public IP and the guests will be available through port forwarding on the public IP along with (at this stage) 1 IPv6 assigned to each guest.
We're considering Proxmox and Virtualizor which can do what we need but using a new platform appeals to us as well
This is doable on our panel, but iptables for nat forwarding is currently manual labour. I'll surely try to make this UI based in the coming release.
https://hypervisorio.getcadet.com/
Public feature request and bug report tracking!