What 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?
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?
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 remote box with SSH + ZFS works. No need to deploy something like PBS just to get decent backups.
Built-in Samba shares: You can spin up and manage shares directly from the UI without having to manually configure services.
Magnet / torrent downloader baked in: Sounds small, but for homelab use it removes a whole extra container/VM people usually end up running.
Clustering: but not all-or-nothing, You can cluster nodes when you need it, and also disable/unwind it later. Proxmox clusters are much more rigid once set up.
Templates done right: Create a base VM/jail once and spin up N instances from it in one go, straight from the UI.
FreeBSD base: It's not really a benefit of Sylve, but rather the ecosystem that FreeBSD provides.. Tighter system integration, smaller surface area, no systemd, etc. (depending on what you care about)
None of this is to say Proxmox is bad, it’s great. This is more "we used it a lot, hit some friction points, and built something that feels smoother for our workflows."
(That'd be amazing if it's possible to do stuff like dump configs + check them into git from the cli, then stand them up on any bhve/sylve box later...)
Can you explain your use case when you absolutely can't provide a separate M.2 drive solely for the OS?
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.
There have since been implementations for Linux but no distribution is designed to support them.
Folks using TrueNAS or unRAID for backup instead of safe keeping, and then get mad when everything goes sideways and the data is gone. Your NAS must have a backup elsewhere, snapshot and what not won't save you if everything goes RIP.
ZFS is redundancy and redundancy only, but people see ZFS as some sort of backup. That is silly and wrong.
>A rollback capability is why I'm looking for Proxmox alternatives.
Your VMs and LXC container should have an automated backup. Proxmox itself takes a second to clean install it.
I had to change the motherboard and had to literraly install Proxmox 9.1 from scratch. BUT.... before doing that, I checked the LXC backups sent to a TrueNAS spool in mirror for safe keeping.
Reinstalled Proxmox, mounted the NFS share on Proxmox and voila, all the LXC containers were restored and started like nothing happened.
I'm talking about this, basically: https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/*bsd-17/howto-zfs-m...
There have since been implementations for Linux but no distribution is designed to support them.
Proxmox is Debian/Ubuntu based.
Both will have their advantages. It might not be about better or worse, the particular things you use may in some cases run better on BSD, or the security management could more fit what you are after.
I wonder why not run both :).
Proxmox is due for it's viral moment though.
A Un*x system that doesn't use systemd as an init system.