Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Proxmox VE: Installation and configuration' started by martin, Sep 17, 2012.
Both OpenVZ (first choice) and KVM (iSCSI+LVM).
I do my best with OpenVZ, but it is too tricky, while KVMs are very straight forward.
I use oVZ every time I can, but for complex environments I opt for KVMs. Chances for success are greater in KVMs. Indeed, once I have a fully operational KVM, I try to migrate it to oVZ. You know, once you are sure the settings are correct.
Any case, excellent product.
I guess both (even though I have not yet managed to install Promox on my goddamn server F1DH)
But, the reason why people prefer Proxmox to OpenVZ/KVM is because it contains both.
I would love to see more features added to Proxmox though.. Like a little more work on Cloud (as what OnApp does)
It would then certainly hook the market.
yes, something like OnApp interface we can offer to our clients so we can resell, that'd be huge.
Only KVM. OpenVZ is a buggy shit.
I use both; openvz preferably.
I use both.
The overriding reason to choose Proxmox is that it can combine a reliable container and VM capability in the same host. It allows me to get a density and resilience that I wouldn't be able to achieve otherwise in a small footprint. I cannot run Oracle in a VM due mainly to clock issues but it runs great in OpenVZ. I have to also support Windows servers. With other technologies, we would have to run a couple of Oracle boxes and either a couple of Hypervisors and a couple of container hosts, or more hypervisors to manage the less compact VMs. This way I can run everything in the same infrastructure or even on a single laptop for demonstration purposes (although getting the wireless lan working was 'fun'). If you are considering a way forward from OpenVZ which appears to be locked to 2.6, perhaps LXC provides that? It seems a lot less mature than OVZ though.
Here we use only kvm for production.
We run mostly linux Centos vm, Windows vm and some Freebsd appliance.
openvz is used to test quickly some web applications provides as template.
I use both. openvz preferably.
I use both, about 60% KVM to 30% OpenVZ. Having both is a key feature that is a huge benefit.
I use OpenVZ when ever possible, and the more I learn the moreVMs are converted into CTs. It's the combination that made me use Proxmox.
I use both equally
They are both very essential
I really do not understand those who say that "only kvm". Before Proxmox, I used vmware fot two years but I was not satisfied with the performance. Proxmox has kvm+openvz; openvz is the virtualizer most powerful on the planet, if I decide not to use openvz I think I would use vmware or citrix xen which today are more mature products of Proxmox.
Proxmox is a good product (that over time you will gain a slice of the market if its authors will be able to make the right moves) but openvz is the real killer application that citrix and vmware do not have.
those who have decided not to use "openvz", does not know what he is missing!
Proxmox is a very unique system as if supports both OpenVZ and KVM. More power to the dedicated Proxmox team. Thanks so much!
Add me to the list of people who use VZ where possible and KVM for annoying things like Windows.
We use both. OpenVZ contrainer for some trivial tasks, that we are sure won't have any memory leaks (oomguard is pretty angry) and KVM for those, that are not that well coded or those, that need some Network rights (pure-ftpd, pptp, vpn), or those, that may use a lot of memory at some moments, like large nagios installations.
There should be both! That makes Proxmox so special!
I prefer OpenVZ, I only use KVM when I need a Windows server.
OpenVZ - faster then KVM for linux
for windows we using VMware