Sylve looks like a decent project with a promising future but this article really doesn't explain why they picked it over Proxmox at all. They explain a lot of things but I can't see the advantage over prox other than they wanted to use it.
OP here. One thing we mentioned in the blog but probably didn’t emphasize enough is how deeply ZFS is integrated into the UI. With Sylve, you rarely need to touch the CLI. Snapshots, datasets, ZVOLs, even flashing images directly to ZVOLs, it’s all handled from the UI in a straightforward way. That tight ZFS integration also lets us build more flexible backup workflows. You can back up VMs, jails, or entire datasets…
From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
41–50 of 86 posts
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nested virtualization can be very handy in both the lab and in production. In the lab, you can try out a new hosting platform by running one atop the other. IE: Proxmox on VMWare, Hyper-V on KVM. This lets you try things out without needing fresh bare metal hardware. In prod, let's say you run workloads in Firecracker VMs. You have plenty of headroom on your existing hardware. Nested virtualization would allow you to…
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that case be covered by simply putting some vms under a vnet and others on another vnet and make them talk to each other? I can't also understand what you mean by "fresh bare metal hardware". In either case you don't need bare metal, being a top level vm or a nested one.
However, the point about firecracker VMs in place of containers I think is really a good use-case. Firecracker can provide a better isolation environment, so it would be great to be able to run Firecracker VMs for workloads, which would require that the host (and the VM host above) support nested virtualization.
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#43Likewise for disk i/o -some people swear by 9P as a backing mechanism, some by ZVOL.
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the number of drives available, you gain an advantage when your file system can leverage snapshots to roll backwards or forwards. There are other Linux-native filesystems that can provide this capability too, but many admins prefer ZFS because the full range of capabilities is unparelleled.
Perhaps I'm missing your point, but proxmox+lxc on zfs storage works fine in proxmox? If just looks like any other storage in proxmox and on commandline you've got all the usual zfs tools
It is unlikely for there to be issues with ZFS and Linux. It's too common now, but it's not included in the main Linux tree, so it's not explicitly tested.
So, it's a low risk, but not zero risk.
More to the point here, when working with FreeBSD, ZFS is a first-class citizen (moreso even), so working with it *should* be more integrated with a FreeBSD solution than Proxmox, but how much more (and is that meaningful) is probably a qualitative feel than quantitative fact.
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#45What does Sylve provide that proxmox doesn't? Or better, how does it do it better than proxmox? This isn't to say that proxmox is the best thing since sliced bread, I'm curious as to what makes sylve better, is it the API?
OP here. It’s less about Sylve doing something Proxmox can’t do, and more about a bunch of QoL improvements that come from us being heavy Proxmox users and building what we felt was missing. A few concrete things: ZFS-first UX: Not just "ZFS as storage”, but everything built around it. Snapshots, clones, ZVOLs, replication, all cleanly exposed in the UI without dropping to CLI. Simple backups without extra infra: Any…
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#46Sylve looks like a decent project with a promising future but this article really doesn't explain why they picked it over Proxmox at all. They explain a lot of things but I can't see the advantage over prox other than they wanted to use it.
OP here. One thing we mentioned in the blog but probably didn’t emphasize enough is how deeply ZFS is integrated into the UI. With Sylve, you rarely need to touch the CLI. Snapshots, datasets, ZVOLs, even flashing images directly to ZVOLs, it’s all handled from the UI in a straightforward way. That tight ZFS integration also lets us build more flexible backup workflows. You can back up VMs, jails, or entire datasets…
On proxmox ZFS syncs do not require proxmox backup server, which actually has its own format which is very efficient in speed and disk space, but you do either need something like sanoid/syncoid or use of the shell.
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes unification can be an advantage. I run Proxmox at home, but now that I have been drinking the NixOS koolaid over the past 2 years, all of my homelab problems suddenly look like Nix-shaped nails.
Well it looks like we might soon be able to have the benefits of NixOS while also having bhyve (and presumably Sylve): https://github.com/nixos-bsd/nixbsd
Looks like Nix will eat the world soon. :)
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#48Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it looks like we might soon be able to have the benefits of NixOS while also having bhyve (and presumably Sylve): https://github.com/nixos-bsd/nixbsd
https://github.com/SaumonNet/proxmox-nixos Looks like Nix will eat the world soon. :)
Re: From Proxmox to FreeBSD and Sylve in our office lab
#50Wow, TIL! https://github.com/AlchemillaHQ/Sylve Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4oD5UON30
Not sure why this copy made the SCP