For sure! As far as I know most hosts (all?) doing KVM on SolusVM will have template support.
Proxmox doesn't support it though and that's where I do most of my dev work
Francisco
Good ol' debate OpenVZ vs KVM - Why yes, why not?
- Thread starter SeriesN
- Start date
Proxmox doesn't support it though and that's where I do most of my dev work
Francisco
That's a good point, I never noticed that
. Thanks!I don't use proxmox a whole hell of a lot as you can tell.
Francisco
I'm going to allow clients to download ISOs and system snapshots on my little panel, however I'm not going to allow uploading their own due to security... until I find a way I'm happy with.For sure! As far as I know most hosts (all?) doing KVM on SolusVM will have template support.
Proxmox doesn't support it though and that's where I do most of my dev work
Francisco
I don't know how well guarded VMs are when it comes to malformed images... if in doubt use raw, too simple to screw up lol
wdq
Quade
If I can trust that the provider isn't overselling their resources too much I almost always prefer OpenVZ. It's much easier to install/reinstall operating systems, and it typically just plain works.
The only time I use KVM is when I need to change something to do with the kernel, like when setting up a VPN server, or when I need to run something other than Linux.
The only time I use KVM is when I need to change something to do with the kernel, like when setting up a VPN server, or when I need to run something other than Linux.
It's really a tie for me as both an end user and a provider (or staff member thereof).
KVM has the distinct disadvantage of requiring the entire disk to be available at any time. This means you can't shrink or expand the disk without messing with gParted. Of course, this is a necessity because of full virtualisation (which comes with quite the few benefits such as an independent kernel), but it tags on a hefty time tag when migrating clients from node to node. It's also quite a bit more difficult to debug issues with the container, as you can't see very much from the host node. OpenVZ also has less overhead, at the cost of a considerably stronger "link" between the VM and the host.
I have an OpenVZ VPS which works perfectly for my needs as a Debian-OS webserver and code repo, however I consistently consider moving to a KVM solely so I can be edgy and run Arch on a server.
KVM has the distinct disadvantage of requiring the entire disk to be available at any time. This means you can't shrink or expand the disk without messing with gParted. Of course, this is a necessity because of full virtualisation (which comes with quite the few benefits such as an independent kernel), but it tags on a hefty time tag when migrating clients from node to node. It's also quite a bit more difficult to debug issues with the container, as you can't see very much from the host node. OpenVZ also has less overhead, at the cost of a considerably stronger "link" between the VM and the host.
I have an OpenVZ VPS which works perfectly for my needs as a Debian-OS webserver and code repo, however I consistently consider moving to a KVM solely so I can be edgy and run Arch on a server.
I'm curious; how is it easier? For RamNode at least, we have preset templates that people can install just like an OpenVZ VPS, or you can mount your own ISO and go to town with a custom installation configuration.
Last edited by a moderator:
wdq
Quade
The majority of providers don't offer pre built KVM templates like that. RamNode is one of the few exceptions.
I've seen customers open support tickets asking how to SSH to their new KVM, apparently not realizing they have to install their own OS through VNC. When I told them that, they went "but admin, I do not know how to use the VNC! PLZ do the needful to make VPS os work". Or something like that. All the customers I saw do that were Chinese. Common thread perhaps?
peterw
New Member
Noone is offering templates. And a lot of provider do only support Java vnc clients. You have to install Java to be able to see the settings (ip
ort) and to connect to your KVM with your own vnc client. A lot of providers handle KVM servers like dedicated servers.They know OpenVZ and think that SolusVM is the operating system. They read threads like this that KVM is better and cooler and therefore they buy KVM. The same guys going to a friend to install Windows on their laptops because they are not able to do it.
I have some frensh and german friends asking me for help because they rent a dedicated server and are not able to ftp to it to upload their homepage. Even asking where they can add a domain or mailbox with VNC...
lv-matt
New Member
Unless its just exclusively for me, last time I checked SolusVM had templates for KVM and have had them for some time now.Noone is offering templates. And a lot of provider do only support Java vnc clients. You have to install Java to be able to see the settings (ip
Infant I have had "templates" available even before SolusVM implemented the feature. I think I was one of the first few in the LEB end of the market to implement them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like OpenVZ (Shock horror) due to the speed of deployment of basic things, if you want a dynamic site up and running in no time with little fuss it is great, it works well for hosts and works well for end users without much experience or requirement for more advanced things.
KVM is great if you want complete flexibility and control along with isolation.
They both have a place, I think Xen PV is right in the middle but out of the 2 mentioned by the OP overall I personally would pick KVM because I dont like to run in to the brick walls you can with OpenVZ and I dont even have to consider trust as an issue to the same degree as I do with OpenVZ.
I would say neither one is better than the other, it is like do I need a economic small car or a people carrier, it depends what you need it for.
KVM is great if you want complete flexibility and control along with isolation.
They both have a place, I think Xen PV is right in the middle but out of the 2 mentioned by the OP overall I personally would pick KVM because I dont like to run in to the brick walls you can with OpenVZ and I dont even have to consider trust as an issue to the same degree as I do with OpenVZ.
I would say neither one is better than the other, it is like do I need a economic small car or a people carrier, it depends what you need it for.
Myself, being a user, its the cost that decides most of the time on choosing a VPS. Since most of my work is on LAMP stack based projects, OpenVZ suites the need. At times, when client require Java/Tomcat, we usually face issues with OpenVZ, mostly related to memory/swap and so go for KVM.
Purely as an end user I am really just echoing what others have already said. Most of the time OpenVZ because it's quick and easy to deploy, setup and get to work on. For the more serious production type work I will go KVM to remove any potential barriers OpenVZ may have.
I am also getting pretty lazy at backups on my personal production stuff since I decided to use R1Soft which does not run on OpenVZ so that can make my mind up for me.
Having said all of that though I am more and more choosing Digital Ocean for the quick projects or testing, simply because of it's flexibility over the standard WHMCS/Solus setup.
I am also getting pretty lazy at backups on my personal production stuff since I decided to use R1Soft which does not run on OpenVZ so that can make my mind up for me.
Having said all of that though I am more and more choosing Digital Ocean for the quick projects or testing, simply because of it's flexibility over the standard WHMCS/Solus setup.
wlanboy
Content Contributer
But OpenVZ depends on the skills of your provider. I did not touch any barrier of OpenVZ yet.
Ok one time because a kernel version was not available and therefore Ubuntu 13.1 was not available (had to switch node).
Ubuntu is a PITA IMO. Honestly, i've had nothing but trouble with it.
I feel it depends on a mixture of two elements Cost and complexity of prerequisites for the application . Low cost and fairly straightforward environment would go well for an Openvz on the other hand a complex requirement generally would require KVM, for a efficient running but then the cost is obviously high.
For a host - i would say KVM Is generally cheaper.