With free esxi over, not shocking bit sad, I am now about to move away from a virtualisation platform i’ve used for a quarter of a century.

Never having really tried the alternatives, is there anything that looks and feels like esxi out there?

I don’t have anything exceptional I host, I don’t need production quality for myself but in all seriousness what we run at home end up at work at some point so there’s that aspect too.

Thanks for your input!

  • anamethatisnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
    551·
    7 months ago
    • KVM/QEMU/Libvirt/virt-manager on a Debian 12 for minimal installation that allows you to choose backup tools and the like on your own.
    • Proxmox for a mature KVM-based virtualizer with built in tools for backups, clustering, etcetera. Also supports LXC. https://github.com/proxmox
    • Incus for LXC/KVM virtualization - younger solution than Proxmox and more focused on LXC. https://github.com/lxc/incus
    • vegetaaaaaaa@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      7 months ago

      /thread

      This is my go-to setup.

      I try to stick with libvirt/virsh when I don’t need any graphical interface (integrates beautifully with ansible [1]), or when I don’t need clustering/HA (libvirt does support “clustering” at least in some capability, you can live migrate VMs between hosts, manage remote hypervisors from virsh/virt-manager, etc). On development/lab desktops I bolt virt-manager on top so I have the exact same setup as my production setup, with a nice added GUI. I heard that cockpit could be used as a web interface but have never tried it.

      Proxmox on more complex setups (I try to manage it using ansible/the API as much as possible, but the web UI is a nice touch for one-shot operations).

      Re incus: I don’t know for sure yet. I have an old LXD setup at work that I’d like to migrate to something else, but I figured that since both libvirt and proxmox support management of LXC containers, I might as well consolidate and use one of these instead.

      • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.ukEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        Ooh, didn’t know libvirt supported clusters and live migrations…

        I’ve just setup Proxmox, but as it’s Debian based and I run Arch everywhere else, then maybe I could try that… thanks!

        • vegetaaaaaaa@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          7 months ago

          In my experience and for my mostly basic needs, major differences between libvirt and proxmox:

          • The “clustering” in libvirt is very limited (no HA, automatic fencing, ceph inegration, etc. at least out-of-the box), I basically use it to 1. admin multiple libvirt hypervisors from a single libvirt/virt-manager instance 2. migrate VMs between instances (they need to be using shared storage for disks, etc), but it covers 90% of my use cases.
          • On proxmox hosts I let proxmox manage the firewall, on libvirt hosts I manage it through firewalld like any other server (+ libvirt/qemu hooks for port forwarding).
          • On proxmox I use the built-in template feature to provision new VMs from a template, on libvirt I do a mix of virt-clone and virt-sysprep.
          • On libvirt I use virt-install and a Debian preseed.cfg to provision new templates, on proxmox I do it… well… manually. But both support cloud-init based provisioning so I might standardize to that in the future (and ditch templates)
          • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            7 months ago

            LXD/Incus provides a management and automation layer that really makes things work smoothly essentially replacing Proxmox. With Incus you can create clusters, download, manage and create OS images, run backups and restores, bootstrap things with cloud-init, move containers and VMs between servers (even live sometimes) and those are just a few things you can do with it and not with pure KVM/libvirt. Also has a WebUI for those interested.

            A big advantage of LXD is the fact that it provides a unified experience to deal with both containers and VMs, no need to learn two different tools / APIs as the same commands and options will be used to manage both. Even profiles defining storage, network resources and other policies can be shared and applied across both containers and VMs.

            Incus isn’t about replacing existing virtualization techniques such as QEMU, KVM and libvirt, it is about augmenting them so they become easier to manage at scale and overall more efficient. It plays on the land of, let’s say, Proxmox and I can guarantee you that most people running it today will eventually move to Incus and never look back. It woks way better, true open-source, no bugs, no holding back critical fixes for paying users and way less overhead.

          • mlaga97@lemmy.mlaga97.spaceEnglish
            1·
            7 months ago

            they need to be using shared storage for disks

            You can perform a live migration without shared storage with libvirt

      • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        Re incus: I don’t know for sure yet. I have an old LXD setup at work that I’d like to migrate to something else, but I figured that since both libvirt and proxmox support management of LXC containers, I might as well consolidate and use one of these instead.

        Maybe you should consider consolidating into Incus. You’re already running on LXC containers why keep using and dragging all the Proxmox bloat and potential issues when you can use LXD/Incus made by the same people who made LXC that is WAY faster, stable, more integrated and free?

      • anamethatisnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        7 months ago

        I use cockpit and my phone to start my virtual fedora, which has pcie passthrough on gpu and a usb controller.

        Desktop:

        Mobile:

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        5·
        7 months ago

        They’re obviously looking for a type 1 hypervisor like Esxi. A type 2 hypervisor like virtualbox does not fit the bill.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        7 months ago

        VB is awful.

        And I use it every day.

        It’s like a first-try at a hypervisor. Terrible UI, with machine config scattered around. Some stuff can only be done on the command line after you search the web for how to do it (like basic stuff, say run headless by default). Enigmatic error messages.