4 ms·
How is it "overkill"? Proxmox is so simple to install and administer, I cannot see any use case for manual QEMU/KVM. Who wants to manage machine configs by ha
by deepspace 2y ago
How is it "overkill"? Proxmox is so simple to install and administer, I cannot see any use case for manual QEMU/KVM. Who wants to manage machine configs by hand, like a cave person?
And what about redundancy and backups? Even a one-person business needs those, and small businesses arguably have fewer resources to spend on manual DR processes.
- topspin 2y agoYou're making a leap. In a small environment virt-manager and friends GUI tools are probably sufficient. Yes, proxmox is obviously nicer, no question, but not really necessary. As to the "cave person" nonsense: I version control VMs, I can reproduce the whole stack from git, script any conceivable deployment... I'm not a cave person. I've just been inculcated to this whole world of VM management since before proxmox was a thing. It really isn't the hairball you think it is. People routinely author docker compose scripts and collections of k8s yaml deployments that are far more intricate than a VM config, and consider themselves on plane with modern devops. > And what about redundancy and backups? What about them? There are many was to solve that, and nearly all of them are better done using storage system tools: NAS, ZFS, NetApp, LVM, EBS, etc. I made that point elsewhere: the real problem with VM management isn't provisioning VMs. It's storage. Solve that and the rest is pretty basic.