All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Virtualizor and Host OS
Hello,
While I am still experimenting with ProxMox and Debian, I need to work on a new project and need to setup a new Node ASAP. Since I am already using Virtualizor and so far, happy with easy of use, I am going to setup the node with Virtualizor. (I need more time for my grip of Debian/Proxmox)
Here is my question.
Which OS you would choose for the Host Node?
I was thinking to use AlmaLinux 9.x but Virtualizor doesn't support it yet.
Should I stick with CentOS 7 for more stability (which is what I am currently using mostly) ??
Is there any performance/features benefit for going with Almalinux 8.x ??
I understand CentOS 7 EOL is around the corner. But so far, it has been a stable OS and works without any issue. (also I am more used to it with most of my setups).
Any suggestions / recommendations ?
Comments
No
Yes - newer kernels are better in terms of optimisations and performance
Generally partial to Alma and Debian (depending on what we're doing--one of those two always fits the bill).
Would recommend going with newest (stable) you can, though there is something to be said for working on what you're already comfortable with.
Will also depend on your hardware, but particularly with Ryzens (and expecially 7000 series stuff) the newer kernels are a must or you're leaving a ton of performance on the table.
Fair point.
>
I didn't think of that. Thanks for pointing that out. New Server is going to be based on AMD Epyc so yea, that makes sense.
When I was talking about being comfortable, I actually meant any CentOS/AlmaLinux/RHEL.
I have used Ubuntu here and there but not a lot. That's why Debian+Proxmox is going to take a while to get more used to and for production use (for Me).
Latest version of Debian generally has a more up to date kernel, and would probably better for stability. If you don't want to go down that route then the latest version of AlmaLinux would be fine.
We use Alma on our nodes, I would advise against Ubuntu as there are a few small niggling issues that do not have a impact on performance but should they arise just waste time in resolving which maybe would be better spent serving customers or promoting your business
You can install proxmox and both virtualizoe on the same machine. If your host node doesn’t have minimal resources like 16 gb ram, then you can install proxmox, then virtualizor and use them both.
That is an interesting thought. I have never thought about it.
Is there any benefit for such setup ??
Wouldn't it make more complex ? And possibility of more issues ?
Virtualizor and Proxmox fighting with each other over bridge network ...
I only use KVM.
No, they don't. I personally tried it and I didn't encounter any problems except general login issue to virtualizor panel (ubuntu 22.04 have too) you can easily fix it with their guide.
Yeah, it may sound more complicated but you have proxmox advantage over only KVM setup. You can manage the VM's with proxmox too. Can be considered if a lot of fine tuning is required.
https://www.virtualizor.com/docs/install/install-proxmox/
Since you guys are in discussions about Virtualizor,
I have questions about it like;
Cores percentage
If I assign 2 cores, do I have to do 100% or 200%?
Or even just put 0 since it means no restriction?
Thank you for the insights!
So what's OS that you reference for going with Ryzen 9 series?
Is there anyone can help about this?
In the
CPU Cores
section you just enter the number of cores, for example 5. In theCPU %
section you would enter 500% to give full access to all 5 cores.They have a more detailed guide here: https://www.virtualizor.com/docs/admin/creating-a-vps/#cpu-parameters
Thank you for your respond.
I have another question if you don't mind.
If I assign 2 dedicated cores in
CPU Affinity
to a VM then I give 4 in theCPU Cores
, how many percentage that I have to put inCPU %
?Is it 200% (following the CPU Affinity) or 400% (following the CPU Cores) ?
Btw @crunchbits according your 2 cents about
Does the performance will also different based on virtualization panel?
Like VM managed by virtualizor, VF, or Solus VM will give different yabs/benchmark results even with a same node specs.
I don't think changing of a control panel would make a difference for VM performance.
But the configuration might make things different. Especially the way you are using disk. (like LVM/Thin LVM / Raw or Qcow2)
VF defaults to using disk based images
You can use same with virtualizor as well but I have it setup using LVM and RAW
Long time when I was setting my 1st node, I did my testing and RAW was much better performance vs Qcow2. Things may have changed in recent time.
But I will let experts answer your queries.
Outside of specific settings and configuration, it shouldn’t matter. Assuming you’re comparing KVM to KVM or similar.
@Umair is also right about disk settings. RAW usually gave us best performance, but has other trade-offs which can definitely matter. For example: selling someone 300GB of disk but they’re only using 3GB and you need to migrate them? Qcow2 means you move 3GB, RAW means you’re moving 300GB of empty space. Just comes down to what you value—and qcow2 performance hit on nvme really wasn’t too noticeable (more so on some ssd and HDD setups).
I think you are wrong.
C/P from an official Virtualizor's tutorial:
Regards,
Can you elaborate @Aytch ?