KVM Freenas

[netmonky]

Hi Guys,

I have built a mini-itx server with an xeon E3 cpu to build a all in one utility box that will complete all my home tasks. I really like freenas and wanted to install this as a KVM under proxmox. It seems that the x64 version will not boot when 'Kernel visualization' is enabled which appears to be a bug in BSD. x86 works fine but i have loads of memory to give to the kvm for zfs to much ;-).

Can anyone help me overcome this issue? Can i patch the kernel somehow?

Thanks
Mark

 

[jgreco]

It seems that the x64 version will not boot when 'Kernel visualization' is enabled which appears to be a bug in BSD.

You misspelled "proxmox and KVM", "BSD" is not an acceptable abbreviation for "proxmox and KVM."

Can anyone help me overcome this issue? Can i patch the kernel somehow?[/QUOTE]

You can read the sticky. KVM is a rather crummy hypervisor. It works okay if you're running something that you can modify to include its paravirtual device drivers, and that is well-supported by KVM. You're much better off running FreeNAS on bare metal, or if you absolutely can't, then at least on a hypervisor that can give FreeNAS direct access to the hardware storage controllers. I've only seen this happen convincingly well under ESXi. So you might have an opportunity here to try out VMware's free ESXi. Do pay attention to everything in the sticky. You won't get much sympathy here in these forums if you disregard anything in the sticky. The common newbie mistake is to think that it doesn't apply to you. It does. The best advice is "don't virtualize FreeNAS at all," and most of the active forum members are tired of hearing from people who have virtualized FreeNAS only to experience epic failures. The virtualization sticky is something I wrote to give people a path to follow if they really absolutely must do it, because it IS possible to do it. But it is a very specific formula to follow that leads to success.

 

[netmonky]

sorry. typed from a phone. Seems a big cpu for just freenas. Thanks, I will take a look at ESXi. I hope i have not p!ssed anyone off :)

 

[jgreco]

I hope i have not p!ssed anyone off :)

No, I just like to get it all out of the way at once. The sticky addresses each of the major problems that virtualizers tend to run into and we're all kind of tired of the stream of tears, especially since some inevitably end up blaming FreeNAS.

As a result, some of the senior members are convinced that virtualization of FreeNAS is a fool's errand. I am convinced that it is nearly so, except that if you go about it in just the right way, it actually does work. And there are compelling reasons to want it to work. Energy efficiency, manageability, ability to fit a lot of usefulness in a small footprint... but it is inherently risky. The technique I outline basically exposes real hardware to FreeNAS and ensures that you will be able to rescue anything stranded on your NAS if your virtualization layer becomes untenable. Protect the data, first and foremost.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope i have not p!ssed anyone off :)

No, I just like to get it all out of the way at once. The sticky addresses each of the major problems that virtualizers tend to run into and we're all kind of tired of the stream of tears, especially since some inevitably end up blaming FreeNAS.

As a result, some of the senior members are convinced that virtualization of FreeNAS is a fool's errand. I am convinced that it is nearly so, except that if you go about it in just the right way, it actually does work. And there are compelling reasons to want it to work. Energy efficiency, manageability, ability to fit a lot of usefulness in a small footprint... but it is inherently risky. The technique I outline basically exposes real hardware to FreeNAS and ensures that you will be able to rescue anything stranded on your NAS if your virtualization layer becomes untenable. Protect the data, first and foremost.