Jeremy Davis's picture

I have made this thread so as to consolidate and continue conversation going from ideas already discussed in this topic and this topic. A brief rundown of my vision can be found on the dev wiki. I have closely based my ideas around Proxmox VE (as I am currently using it and am very very happy with it, besides I think its a very useful model!) But Liraz has suggestioned that other existing opensource VM managment solutions be considered too, which I think is a good call. So the list I have so far stands at:

I'd like to do a bit of dev work around this when I get time but I'd like to hear whats wanted as I don't really want to go off on my own tangent only to find I'm all alone. At the end of the day Proxmox is already fulfilling my needs so I have no real need to change anything. I've just become attached to TKL and would really like my server running TKL as the host OS too!

I think some of the fundamental questions are:

  • Should it be available in 32 bit, 64 bit or both? (Obviously initially it will only be 32 bit as it will be built on TKL Core).
  • Should it be aimed specifically as a host for TKL (and other linux) VMs or should it be able to provide facility for Windows and other OSs? (ie Openvz/container only or KVM/true-virtualisation as well?)
  • Should it aim to run on hardware specifically (in which case only available as an .iso), or more VM based? (Ideally it'd be good to support both but be good to know what target market is.)
  • Should it have some additional functionality of some sort built in? Or should it just be purely a lightweight host OS? If so what functionality would be appropriate?
  • Should it be based on current TKL base (Ubuntu) or would Debian (or some other distro for that matter) be better? Why?

And I'm sure there's plenty more...

My personal inclination at this point would be to go for a 32 & 64 bit TKL/Ubuntu VM host only system using OpenVZ and KVM . I would like to see it optimised for Hardware and TKL clients but with facility for running in a virtual machine and ability to host other guest OSs too. Perhaps a couple of versions could be available? Basically I'd like to see a TKL adaptation of Proxmox (based on Ubuntu rather than Debian and available in 32 bit as well).

I note with great interest that both OpenVZ and KVM are available from the Ubuntu 8.04 repos (although most of the latest KVM improvements are only available in later kernels). Unfortunately OpenVZ dev seems to have slowed but KVM is under rapid developement. LXC (container virtualisation similar to OpenVZ) is looking like a possible improvement and/or substitute for OpenVZ (especially if developemnt stalls further). From this article about LXC (and "how to install it in 9.10) it seems LXC should be working sweet in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (base for future versions of TKL!?)

Please post your ideas, thoughts and any other input!

- edited so it makes more sense (it was a late night last night!)

Liraz Siri's picture

Sorry for the late reply I somehow missed this post!

First off as stated before I think this is a terrific idea and I'd love to learn more from those in the community who have experience with the various virtualization alternatives (e.g., KVM vs OpenVZ).

A few clarifications regarding our development plan for TurnKey Linux:

  • Yes, future releases of TurnKey Linux will be based on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
  • Debian based builds of appliances will also be supported in the future.
  • 64-bit support is planned.

In a nutshell our philosophy is to let users choose whenever possible so it's not a question of Ubuntu vs Debian, or 32-bit vs 64-bit.

We plan on supporting them all. Or rather, supporting the best options. Because really in many cases you can't say one is better than the other but rather that there are different pros and cons for each alternative and which is best depends on your circumstances.

On OpenVZ vs KVM

This is especially true with regards to virtualization technologies such as OpenVZ vs KVM. They're different approaches to the same problem. If I'm not mistaken, OpenVZ is a thin container-level virtualization solution, so you have one kernel and many userlands. OTOH, KVM is a hardware virtual machine based solution in which each virtual machine is running it's own emulated hardware stack and it's own kernel, etc. The level of isolation KVM provides you is much stronger, but you pay for it with greater overhead (e.g., RAM, CPU).

Because each is better suited for different usage scenarios if possible we want to support both.

Target the ISO build

Many virtualization solutions are designed to run on bare metal. You can theoretically nest some virtualization solutions but I don't think that's a popular usage scenario. I recommend you stick with hacking the ISO build.

Development process

What I suggest is trying to create a patch for TurnKey Core which implements a basic virtualization solution from a component you think would make a neat basis for this. Since it's a TurnKey appliance for running other appliances let's call it TurnKey Meta Core. Only once the basic, most important stuff is working well do you start to think about adding more bells and whistles, and always remembers that every additional component and feature has a cost (e.g., increased footprint, usage complexity, security risks, etc.) and that cost has to be weighed against the benefits. That's how we try and figure out what belongs in a TurnKey appliance BTW.

Starting goal: do the simplest thing that could possibly work

Simplest way to turn a bare metal machine into a platform for running other TurnKey appliances (though it doesn't have to be limited to TurnKey!).

Our target audience is technically savvy but not experts with this virtualization stuff. They like the concept and they want to run a whole collection of TurnKey appliances on that server in the closet and they want TurnKey to make it super easy for them to do that.

At the moment you shouldn't worry about the sort of extra things high-end users will want (e.g., support for hardware clusters). That's further down the road.

Experiment experiment experiment

Unless you already have extensive experience and know exactly what needs to be done there is really no point in planning too far ahead. The key here is to adopt an playful attitude and find out what works best via experimentation. That seems to work pretty well for us anyhow. Just immerse yourself in the technology and once you are really familiar with them then the right thing to do will be much easier to decide. Don't plan for the future. Let the future take care of itself.

Steve's picture

On 11/29/09 Liraz Siri said:

"Our target audience is technically savvy but not experts with this virtualization stuff. They like the concept and they want to run a whole collection of TurnKey appliances on that server in the closet and they want TurnKey to make it super easy for them to do that."

This describes me exactly.  I want to run a collection  of TKL appliances on a computer I have.  I am thinking File Server appliance and vTiger CRM appliance as a start.

I have found plenty info on how to install a single TKL Appliance to either bare metal or a Virtual Machine but no info on the best way to install multilpe appliances to a single machine.

From what I have read it appears that maybe the answer is to intall Virtual Box and then each TKL Appliance to separate Virtual Box Machines.  Is that correct?

If so, since my computer is not doing anything at the moment , would it be most efficient to use Windows XP or Ubuntu as the base Operation system.  Note I didn't say best, I am asking most efficient in terms of use of resources.

TIA for any guidance you can give me.


Jeremy Davis's picture

I just wrote a big long reply but I've lost it I think I accidentally browsed away from the page - Doh! I'll try again...

Anyway the point I was making is that I agree with pretty much everything you said Liraz! Whilst I still haven't done anything concrete I have done a little research.

Name KVM OVZ Xen etc web int deb kernel
Proxmox Y Y N Y* Y Y Y
oVirt Y N N@ N Y Y N
Enormaly$ ? ? ? ? Y ? ?
Ganeti Y N Y ?+ Y Y& N
Eucalyptus Y N Y N Y Y# ?
DTC-Xen N N Y N Y Y% N
The first 4 columns refer to the Virtualisation technologies supported, 4th column web interface (which they all have so I could've left that column out!), 5th refers to binary/deb/repo availability, the final column refers to whether a kernel is provided as part of the install (assuming it is needed, KVM is included in later revisions of the kernel so no modification required).
* - Proxmox have plans to support & include LXC although no clear timeframe.
@ - oVirt are planning to implement Xen handling but no timeframe.
$ - Enormaly has a very nice web page and looks like a very attractive interface with some powerful features - unfortunatley their website is a little short on details.
+ - Ganeti will theoretically be enhanced to controll other OpenSource Virtualisation technologies but no clear indication of what or when.
& - Ganeti included in Ubuntu & Debian repos (see here)
# - In the Ubuntu 9.04 repo (not before and not sure about since) but for Debian only binaries.
% - In Debian repo apparently.
It appears that from my list only Proxmox supports OpenVZ. Also even though many of the others support KVM and Xen, they are mutually exclusive technologies (they can not both be running on a single machine at any one time). OpenVZ will happily run alongside of KVM (or Xen too probably) - but it does require a custom kernel (which Proxmox kindly provide).

I'm guessing you can see where this is headed! Proxmox have a Debian repo so you can install from there on Debian (and probably Ubuntu too?).

Whilst I like Xen (at least from what I've read) KVM is probably the easier technology to implement on Linux (as its already included in Debian & Ubuntu repos). It seems that whilst KVM will theoretically run on 32 bits, its not really supported (makes sense to some degree because of the RAM limitations - apparently guests on 32 bit KVM can only have max RAM of 2GB). Packages are only in 64 bit repo from what I can gather. KVM does not require a modded kernel (support is included in standard kernel).

OpenVZ is included in Debian repos but not Ubuntu. It uses on an older kernel (currently 2.26) so unless you wish to complie your own custom kernel, many of the new kernel features are unavailable (not such an issue with current TKL on 8.04 but not ideal for 10.04).

As Liraz also mentions, there is a trade off performance vs isolation. For smaller workplaces (esp non-profits like mine) its possibly a no brainer - less resource use = better VM performance on older/cheaper hardware, limited need for isolation. For larger corporate type locations or hosting services then it may be a no brainer in the other direction.

When I first started looking for a Virtualisation platform/Hypervisor I was initially leaning toward Xen, but then I found Proxmox and haven't looked back. The beauty of Proxmox is that 2 alternate (KVM & OpenVZ) technologies are available simultaneously. Even though it requires a custom kernel, Proxmox provide that. One downside of this is that they have to compromise and some of the newer KVM features are unavailable in Proxmox because of that. Hopefully this will change as it seems OpenVZ developement has picked up again (at least a little - it was stalled for some time).

Next on my agenda is to try to install the modded 32 bit deb onto TKL Core (Proxmox only provide a 64 bit deb - but someone has kindly modded it to work on 32 bit). Unfortunatley this only supports OpenVZ (no KVM) but may provide proof of concept.

In my opinion the only requirements for TKL purposes would be to hack the interface a little and add TKL VM images (KVM apparently supports VMware images so should be compatible with current TKL builds - I'll check on this)  and OpenVZ templates in the download section - that way users can directly download the images from within the web interface - pretty trick huh! Also probably want to add TKL to the page footer.

Going back to your comments Liraz - One thing I'd like to say about nested installs - for users on Desktops (esp Windows) who wish to use VirtualBox or VMware - the idea of nested OpenVZ VMs running on Meta Core would provide the funtionality that many are looking for (from reading the forums), the performance they want (using OpenVZ containers) without the resource penalty of running multiple VMs simultaneously.

Liraz Siri's picture

Kudos to JedMeister for continuing to research this stuff. I agree that OpenVZ does seem to provide a few special advantages. OTOH, sometimes you do want the benefits of "real" virtualization provided by KVM/XEN, such as when you want stronger security isolation or need to allow each instance to run its own kernel. Being able to mix and match OpenVZ's lightweight approach with a more resource intensive KVM/XEN approach seems to be a big win. ProxMox seems to be very interesting in that regard and according to your research it's the only platform that allows you to do this.

As a hosting customer I personally prefer hard virtualization technologies such as Xen because I know they are harder to oversell and I'm less likely to get a raw deal. But with a meta-TurnKey appliance which would typically be self-hosted or running inside a "hard" VPS overselling isn't really an issue because if you oversell you are overselling to yourself. So that's a nice way to squeeze more performance out of your given memory/CPU resources while still getting the benefits of security and functional isolation between appliances.

OpenVZ is also interesting because providing you can run your own kernel, it would be easier to deploy it nested inside a commodity VPS based on Xen / KVM. I know OpenVZ works under Xen at least.

Unfortunately the leading cloud provider Amazon EC2 doesn't let you run arbitrary kernels. I'm not sure they have allowed any kernels that support OpenVZ.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Because it must be a very relevant consideration for you guys but its such an appealing technology for this proposed appliance!

Oh well, that may not be a problem from April next year. Whilst 10.04 won't support OpenVZ, it will support LXC which is a very similar container type virtualisation. So standard 10.04 kernel will support both KVM and LXC. As you would hope, they will both be in the repos too.

I think that is very exciting! 2010 may well be the year of the TKL Meta Core - with both LXC and KVM support!?! I can't wait!!

Liraz Siri's picture

Amazon EC2 is a nice service, and it may end up providing a way to add more development resources via funding but our vision for TurnKey is much larger than Amazon EC2, or any other commercial service for that matter. Commercial services and market trends come and go. Open source is more resilient then that. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of making a TurnKey meta appliance with the very best components.

Sure its a shame that OpenVZ requires a special kernel, but as you correctly point out, LXC should provide equivalent functionality within the mainline kernel and allow us to provide this sort of solution everywhere without asking hosting providers for special favors. That's an exciting prospect indeed!

Neil Bird's picture

I certainly like the idea of a Turnkey VM server.  It certainly has some benefits for the church I wish to replace a server for.  The only concern I have would be training of finding someone else to maintain the server (none currenlty) if needed.  This is why I was thinking of modules to extend a specific appliance. 

For work, the VM would be the way to go, for the church... not so sure yet.

I would vote for:

(Sorry if I make suggestions that exist in TKL - I have just started testing this past week)

1. 64bit as it should provide for hosting both 32 and 64bit guest OS's

2. Baremetal hardware focused iso

3. Possibly adding domain controller/ldap to the host so as to provide for user authentication for the guest appliances.

I am mainly thinking of how to do this for the church, with only one physical server.


... off to look at proxmox.  I am so glad I ran into TKL.

I hope to learn more of TKL over the next few weeks.

PS, any thoughts on a PBX appliance?



Liraz Siri's picture

I'm not really familiar with PBX technology myself so this is one of those things where the community could help. Asterisk looks very interesting. According to my understanding you do need a bit of special hardware to connect telephones to it. In the case of a virtualized Asterisk appliance you'll at least need to figure out how to interface with the hardware if you want support for that sort of thing.

OTOH, if you only need VoIP functionality I guess things become a little simpler since there's no hardware configuration you have to worry about...

Alon Swartz's picture

I've heard good things about Eucalyptus from the Ubuntu guys, haven't tried it out (yet) myself, but seeing its got the same API as Amazon EC2 it should be interesting.

The only caveat I can forsee is persistent storage though...
Jeremy Davis's picture

but unfortunately I'm having some trouble getting it running on my old Ubuntu (9.10) laptop. (That's probably no great surprise as its a 5 yr old Dell with pretty sub-standard specs).

I can confirm that its in the 9.10 Ubuntu repos which could be a real bonus assuming that it will be in 10.04 too. As I think I already mentioned it supports KVM (also in repos) and Xen (requires custom kernel).

In my travels I found a handy site here re Eucalyptus setup/config amoungst the Ubuntu documentation that may be helpful if for anyone else who wants to have a look.

Considering that its not in the Ubuntu repos pre 9.04, if TKL goes the Eucalyptus route then it'll probably be best to either wait until post 10.04 release, or build some beta prototype on 9.10 or 10.04beta. It seems like there's probably too much work to bother building it on current TKL at this point.

Neil Bird's picture

I just started looking at the VoIP solutions this past week.  As I wanted to shift from the win32/Hmail server for our church I thought this would be a great time to integrate the PBX so we could do some fun things like softphone/videophone.  I initially looked at this thread following the idea of multiple individual appliances.  The PBX idea seemed like a natural idea for an appliance... until you reminded me of the hardware issue for other people, although it should still work well for the softphone idea.  

Considering it further, the need for hardware (in my situation) on the voip is not truly necessary, therefore it might be worth looking into this not as stand alone appliance, but integrating it with another appliance such as the Domain server or Zimbra.

I have decided that using Zimbra Turnkey is my most likely candidate for the mail solution, and as I researched further it appears that Zimbra has a couple of zimlets to integrate with Asterix.  With that in mind, would it be too much to ask that it possibly be included in the next release?

If I get time I will try to install it on the existing Zimbra release.  I was hoping to use the PBX for a SIP based "softphone".  I must admit, I cheated and used a win32 version of Asterix just to see how it works.  As I am not too familiar with Linux, I am not sure I can do this, but I will try to install this weekend.


Feel free to move this if it is not suitable in this thread.   

Liraz Siri's picture

We would consider integrating Zimbra modules to better support integration with applications such as Asterisk but we wouldn't include Asterisk itself in there because that wouldn't be very good appliance engineering.

I think a separate Asterisk appliance would be a great idea but neither Alon or I have ever used that ourselves before so for us there would be a learning curve involved and that delays how soon we'll get to it. What would help is if members of the community with more experience come forward and contribute a tklpatch we can build on.

Stas Grishin's picture

I've messed around with Asterisk before by using Trixbox (formerly asterisk@home). They provide a GPL community edition iso installer at

I don't know if it would be worth creating a separate Asterisk appliance when Trixbox has been around for many years and is the original Asterisk appliance as far as I can remember.

Of course, if anyone has the expertise and desire to recreate this in TKL form, that would be awesome.

Alon Swartz's picture

Fini Decima from recommended we take a look at Abiquo and EyeOS. Has anyone had experience with the above?
Diego Marino's picture


I strongly recommend you to take a deep look to abiCloud (and not only because I'm the VP Community Solutions :-D).

You have my contact details, so ping me to show you a demo.

Next week we will release our 1.0GA, with not only tons of improvements, but also a special surprise for our community & users. 

Jeremy Davis's picture

I have no experience with either but I just had a look at both.

eyeOS looks very interesting but unless I'm missing something, this page seems to suggest that its more of a browser based desktop rather than something suitable for the basis of TKL Meta Core. Don't get me wrong though, I really like the look of it and think its a great candidate for a TKL appliance. Its almost along the lines of Google Apps (or ProjectPier, OpenGoo etc) but laid out like a normal PC desktop (even the file manager looks like nautilus!)

I didn't have quite as close a look at abiCloud but from the screenshots on the site it looks like it has a very polished interface, which is always nice. It definately looks like something along the lines of what we are looking for.

The only thing that I'm not 100% sure about is the fact it uses VirtualBox under the hood. I think VirtualBox is great but I tend to think of it as more of a Desktop VM environment than a Server one. I know it has progressed (since I last used it) and maybe I am being unfair as I know there are some advantages eg can be run on lots more hardware than some (such as Xen or KVM).

Also Oracle's recent aquisition of Sun means who knows what direction it's developement it will take. From what I've read they're keen to take on VMware which may be great, but its still unclear how much effort they will put towards supporting OpenSource development.

[edit] I have also edited the original post to include a link to abiCloud

Diego Parrilla's picture


you can use your favourite hypervisor. We don't lock you in any virtualization technology, that's one of the best features of our product. 

Neil Aggarwal's picture

abiCloud looks very interesting.  I am going to have to play with it to see if it does what I need.

Jeremy Davis's picture

I didn't realise that from my read of the website. I got the impression that the paid version allowed something like that but the free version used VirtualBox only? I should give it a go. I like the sound of that level of flexability.

I guess the big thing for me though is having access to container virtualisation. Is that something that abiCloud could be bent to do too? Or is it something slated for development in the future, with say LXC (which is to be included in 10.04 apparently)?

To reiterate myself (from many previous posts ), I like container virtualisation because of the performance benefits and the ability to squeeze the most out of the hardware (by overcommiting resources). But I also like being able to host alternate OSs (eg Windows) as well and sometimes you want to dedicate hardware resources. Hence my love of Proxmox VE (OpenVZ & KVM). I am yet to come across a product quite like it. The interface is a little retro and clunky looking but very accessable, functional and quite powerful.

But I'm not sure what the future holds. It appears OpenVZ is pretty much dead. Ubuntu will not offer an OpenVZ kernel patch for 10.04. Debian Squeeze will not have an OpenVZ kernel either. My reading online suggests that at least some of the OpenVZ Devs are now collaborating on LXC. It seems to be undergoing very rapid development at the moment but it isn't there yet (see this thread on Ubuntu Forums). I just hope its stable enough for 10.04! I guess being an LTS, as long as its included then it should get tidied up. One huge advantage LXC has over OpenVZ is that it is developed upstream at the kernel level rather than Debian/Ubuntu having to package a third party patch (ie OpenVZ).

Also on a side note (but very relevant to this thread) has anyone else seen UEC (Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud)? Apparently it uses Eucalyptus, documentation is here.

Martin Maurer's picture

just to mention, OpenVZ will be in Squeeze (2.6.32)

FYI, our upcoming Proxmox VE 2.x will have a new "desktop like" web gui (prototype is running well, really cool) - its based on a widly used javascript library.

what do you think about a TKL appliance channel on our Proxmox VE GUI? So users can download tkl appliances in the same way as they do it already with Proxmox VE (openvz based) appliances.

br, Martin

Cavan Kelly's picture

Yes, please.

I can only speak for myself of course, but this would be fantastic!  And, if either Proxmox or TKL provided a full directory services VM including Windows PDC (via SAMBA), OpenLDAP, Kerberos, and possibly FreeRADIUS, we'd have an absolutely KILLER small enterprise system.

Cavan Kelly

Jeremy Davis's picture

I must admit I'm pretty excited to see you here! I've been banging on about ProxmoxVE for ages on these forums because I love it so much!

Thanks for your update on OpenVZ (and it's inclusion in Debian Squeeze). I became aware of that relatively recently and I think that its fantastic news. Especially considering that LXC doesn't seem to be mature enough as an OpenVZ replacement and Ubuntu being unwilling to work with the OpenVZ devs and including it in 10.04 (major, major oversight IMO). Does that will mean ProxmoxVE 2.x will be based on Squeeze (2.6.32) with both OpenVZ and KVM support as perhaps hinted at in your 2.x Roadmap?

I'm looking forward to checking out the new 2.x version. The new WebUI sounds cool. Do you have any screenshots available anywhere?

I'm not a dev here, but have been a fairly active community member (and advocate of ProxmoxVE and OpenVZ in general) for a while and I would LOVE to see a TKL Channel on ProxmoxVE 2.x! I guess that would rely on there being official TKL OpenVZ templates? There are currently some (unoffical) TKL OpenVZ templates (forum topic here) and also my 'how to' entry on the TKL Wiki.

What do you reckon Alon & Liraz?

Liraz Siri's picture

We'd love to collaborate with ProxMox to make this happen. It's unfortunate this post slipped through the cracks somehow. I'll go contact Martin right now and get a communication channel open.

It wouldn't be the first time we've worked with virtualization providers. For example, in the last few months we've been working with Canonical and VMWare to make it easier to install TurnKey Linux appliances. With Canonical, we're getting integrated with the UEC image store. VMWare have their own version of this for vSphere.

We're basically eager to help make it as easy as possible for everyone to try and use TurnKey. Bringing in more users into the community is high on our list of priorities.

Liraz Siri's picture

Quick update: I had a lengthy e-mail discussion with Martin from ProxMox about partnering up with TurnKey and the bottom line is that this isn't something they are ready to commit to yet.

If I understood Martin correctly it's a matter of priorities. ProxMox currently doesn't support third party appliance channels. While they are willing to review community patches that add such support, they aren't currently ready to commit the resources to developing it themselves. It's not a priority. Of course, third party channel support is a pre-requisite for adding a TurnKey channel to ProxMox VE.

Likewise for TurnKey, OpenVZ support hasn't been a priority either. I proposed to Martin that if we partnered up on this we would take care of the TurnKey OpenVZ support on our end and they would take care of ProxMox stuff (e.g., third-party channel support) on theirs. But ProxMox aren't ready to commit to this either. ProxMox roll their own virtual appliances so I'm speculating that part of the reluctance to embrace TurnKey has a bit to do with Not Invented Here syndrome.

Sadly, we've reached a dead-end, but I'm still hoping ProxMox come around eventually. For the record, I still think a partnership would serve the interests of both TurnKey and ProxMox's userbases.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Thanks for the update Liraz. I for one am very disappointed. I completely agree with you that a partnership between TKL and PVE would be fantastic and I personally believe that it would be hugely benificial to both communities.

You may well be right that NIH is a factor, although I suspect another factor is that Proxmox Mail Gateway (proprietary software built on an open source base and/or with open source components) seems to be the main product besides PVE (which is FLOSS). From what I can gather PMG is the Proxmox cash cow? Perhaps they are concerned that a TKL Mail Gateway (which I guess the Zimbra appliance is to some degree) will compete with their product and have a negative impact on their income stream. Whilst that may be a possibility in the short term, I would think that it would end up going the other way.

If more users actually used the appliance channel then PMG would get more exposure. I personally don't use the appliance channel at all. Currently it has no interest for me - last time I checked all it contains is PMG (which I have no use for). Although perhaps I'm in the minority? I believe that having all the TKL appliances available in the appliance channel would make that a more useful feature and anyone looking to deploy TKL appliances would see PMG right at the top, everytime they did. Assuming that PMG is a really good product (I haven't tried it but basing my opinion on PVE I suspect it is) then I would imagine the more people trying it, the more people would buy it (and/or purchase support for it). Obviously it would also increase PVE exposure and which would in all likelihood increase opportunities for Proxmox to sell support for that too (from my understanding, many businesses will want support contracts, even for free software).

Ultimately I think it'd be a win-win all round.

But I guess I'm preaching to the converted here. Perhaps I could post over on the Proxmox forums? I don't want to antagonise anyone because I think that the Proxmox guys produce a quality product in PVE and from what I've seen provide good (free) support (no doubt even better with a support contract). But IMO this is a really short sighted decision on their part.

I wish that I had the know-how, to build such a plugin (and the time and energy to make it really good).

Cavan Kelly's picture

Sorry, I'm not French but just hate "me too" posts.  I've been holding my breath since Martin's post back in May.  Phewww....

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear of this change of heart.  But, on the bright side, it only increases my anticipation of the TKL Master Server so... deep breath!


Cavan Kelly

Martin Maurer's picture

Thanks Liraz for the summary of our discussion to the community - in the first run we need to make Proxmox VE to the best OS virtualization platform as this is our core business. the upcoming 2.0 release will be a major milestone to this goal and we focus on this. If I would ask our community what they prefer A: TKL appliances on Proxmox VE or B: Release of Proxmox VE 2.0 - almost everybody will say first B and afterwards A. The core team will work according this.

But if there is contributor working on the integration of TKL (and channels), we will support these contributions as we do it already on other topics.

Finally, Proxmox VE 2.x will have multiple channels for containers templates and KVM (OVF format), the only open point is who is doing the work and when - this is what you called the dead end (as you have no time to do it, and we have no time to do it NOW), I will call it an invitation to our communities (Proxmox and TKL) to think about how to push this work.

Jeremy Davis's picture

Sounds like I wasn't looking at the bigger picture from your perspective (just from my own personal pewrspective) - without due consideration for your current situation ie focused on releasing 2.x. I apologise if I jumped the gun a little.

TBH even though I'm an unashamed member of the TKL cheersquad and still disapointed that this won't be happening really soon. Even I think I would prefer to see PVE 2.x sooner and TKL integration later, than both later.

Adrian Moya's picture

Guys, i've been watching boths communities as I use proxmox / tkl both at home and work and their are wonderful projects I would like to see integrated. I use OpenVZ containers at work and KVM at home (my personal SOHO). I'm waiting anxiosly promox VE 2.x because of the RESTful web API, which would help a lot in developing a customized solution. 

My idea of this TKL Master Server would be not using proxmox in the foreground, but in the background, hidden from non technical people. I think it's the spirit of TKL, not only to be fast to build an infraestructure, but to be easy. So I thought of developing a panel with easy of use in mind, using proxmox-ve throught the api's, and turnkey appliances, so that a average joe could point n' click the applications they need on his small business, and in case of trouble, a more expert technician could log into proxmox or make customizations to appliances. 
I haven't reviewed other alternatives available today, like deltacloud, because of the lack of time. I've been heavy at work developing a callcenter management app, and I get home really tired. 
But I would like to know which skills would be required to work on this task. I am myself an experienced developer in java/php, learning some ruby for fun. I have experience integrating apps via webservices and API's, and I would like to contribute if possible, if it's really clear what is the work to be done. I can gather two of my linux developer geeks friends and tell them the idea, I know they would join. 
So is it possible to have an overview of the requeriments? Is there a way to get a snapshot of the proxmox VE source? 
Sorry if my english is not the best, my native language is spanish.
Liraz Siri's picture

Your thoughts on easy of use being the priority for a TurnKey master server are in line with our own. Ideally the user just pops an ISO into a server, breezes through installation and is ready to deploy TurnKey appliances as virtual machines in minutes. Bonus points if you can get this to work seamlessly for a cluster of machines.
Liraz Siri's picture

Unfortunately Martin didn't reply directly to your message so you might not have received notification. Martin recommends that for ProxMox specific stuff you should consult their mailing lists.
Martin Maurer's picture

pls email all dev ideas and questions to the Proxmox VE mailing list, see

Liraz Siri's picture

OpenStack is a new project that has some major names behind it including RackSpace, NASA, CITRIX, and RightScale. I spoke about it the other day with Alon and he said he took a look at the architecture and was very impressed. It's implemented mostly in Python. Could be a winner!

Adrian Moya's picture

I've just read they are about to release its 2.0 version. And they have ubuntu packages. I'll study a bit of if when I have some sparetime. 

torusJKL's picture

I use Convirt on my server.
They also have a web interface. Though I haven't used it yet.

Jeremy Davis's picture

I was almost going to start a new one. But decided to revive this old one as there is still plenty of relevant info here.

I know Adrian has been playing with OpenStack so hopefully we will hear a bit from him when he has time?

I just wanted to post about something I came across in my travels which I really like the look of and is vaguely relevant to this thread. TBH it's probably more relevant to a TKL Core appliance (desktop/GUI). It's called Virtual Machine Manager (or virt-manager for short). It's a desktop GUI written in Python for controlling local or remote VMs and as it is uses libvirt as a backend can talk to a huge range of virtualisation technologies (pretty much all the major ones) including VirtualBox, Xen, KVM/QEMU, OpenVZ, LXC, VMware and even MS Hyper-V!

Besides libvirt another cool virtualsation tool I've come across is libguestfs It looks very cool set of tools for working with all sorts of virtual-HDDs. It's not in any current Ubuntu repos, but looks like it'll be in Precise/12.04 - see here.

Add new comment