@stacksofplates
Yes I just tried creating it with virsh and it was created without a problem.
However starting it leads to the same error: The name is not activatable.
I didn't realise virt-manager was being deprecated. Is there a replacement planned?
And your fedora 30 host was fully up to date?
I've finally found someone referencing the same error message: https://forums.whonix.org/t/installing-kvm-conflicting-directions/7582
It was 4 days ago so agrees with the theory that the error is caused by a very recent change in the packages.
Sure - but the reason I noticed this is because the test-network (which I setup when I setup the host) stopped working so the test machines connected to it lost their network. I couldn't reactivate this. The error message was the same as when trying to create a new virtual network.
Fortunately these are test machines so I can live without it for the moment.
A second test-network I'd set up on the same host is still working, which is strange.
Thanks for testing - glad it's not just me! I haven't been able to find anything relating to the error on google. Maybe I just need to wait a few days to see if a fix comes along.
@JaredBusch
I use a bridge onto the LAN for the production stuff. I've also got a test network that I created through virt-manager using most of the defaults that's just available internally to the host.
Edit: just seen your reply. Yes that's exactly what's happening for me.
Hi all,
Is anyone running KVM on Fedora 30?
I think as a result of some recent OS updates, sometime between last Wednesday and today, I've lost the ability to create virtual networks (at least through virt-manager).
Error message is: Error creating virtual network: The name is not activatable
Anyone else seeing similar?
Thanks
I've got the Huawei P20 Pro.
I've had it for 9 months or so. Previous phones were a Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge which my 2 year old son threw down a stone stairs and a OnePlus 2 which he threw into the toilet. I can honestly say the Huawei phone is the best I've had by distance. The camera setup was a step above the other falgships at the time and I believe the P30 continues that trend. When my son finds a way to destroy this one I'll definitely be looking at Huawei again, if they're not completely crippled by the Google stuff.
Actually am I talking rubbish there? The hypervisor will still be Hyper-V so the VM's theselves won't require any conversion?
Just the VSAN software itself will be running in a Linux VM rather than a Windows one.
@sanwin That sounds interesting! Would Starwind support do the conversion of the HCA from Hyper V to Linux based (and all the VMs obviously) for me? Is it likely that the Linux based VSA will be available within the 180 days?
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I don't knwo what the cost differences are here in your situation or all the details, all options seem viable.
It's in the ballpark of 15k more for the appliance than buying the hardware myself from an xbyte equivalent. Getting the active support and having the whole thing setup and monitored by the experts may well be worth the money. I'm not very experienced at making these value judgements..
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
May be better to to go with SW's Appliance then, if the cost comparison makes sense.
It makes the choice between a) getting the appliance and b) getting the hardware myself and buying the Starwind VSAN stuff myself, very easy. The appliance is much better value.
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
in conversation with Starwind about their Hyper Converged App
Oh so he doesn't already have the hardware?
He does not.
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I want to setup a resilient two node virtualisation host production system.
So the goal is not for high-availability, but for host redundancy?
If that's the case, two Hyper-V hosts with the built-in replication just works, and works well.
Just keep in mind that going that direction, you could have between 30 seconds and 15 minutes of permanent data loss should you decide to spin up a replica if primary host dies. (unplanned fail-over)
However, planned-failover is a nice to have if live migration isn't suitable.
Being all Linux guests, no need to worry about licensing (so long as there's no software running on top of it with weird restrictions).
Yes HA would be nice but I suspect we don't really need it. However when it's available (see what I did there?) for a price that doesn't break the budget then it becomes tempting.
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
If Hyper-V is the right choice here, that's not a surprise. And if it is because it is part of the appliance, in a lot of ways you can ignore it. A server with a hypervisor is not exactly the same as an appliance with one. The appliance is a "black box" in theory and how it does its magic is of no concern, until it is exposed to you, if that makes sense.
Yes that's how I've been trying to think about the appliance. Also since it comes with Active Support from Starwind, in theory my worry about less technical people having to support this when I'm away becomes less relevant. In fact, theoretically I would barely need to support it 
I was on a call with Starwind this morning including a sales person and a techie. KVM wasn't mentioned as an option. Perhaps that's because we were discussing the Hyper Converged Appliance and KVM isn't currently an option there. I'm honestly not sure though, I'd have expected them to mention it if it was going to be their focus in the future.
I was looking at the appliance because the price I was quoted for just the VSAN product i.e. the software without any of the hardware, was almost as much as the appliance (and for less usable storage space).
I know Starwind do the free version but since it lacks the management application I was sceptical about using this due to the fact I'd need less technical people to support it in my absence.
Agent versus agentless backups isn't a driving factor for me. I mentioned it because it's something I currently have. I'm not ideologically wedded to it.
Out of roughly 30 VMs, 2 are Windows server instances. We're mostly running Centos here.
I'll look into SA licensing. I'm not very familiar with it.
I want to setup a resilient two node virtualisation host production system.
Every time I narrow it down to what I think is the best solution, I read something that makes me re-think. I need someone to say 'you're a fool for thinking of doing it in any other way than this way'
So I was thinking
Use two standalone Hyper V 2016 servers. No AD domain here so it will require some extra steps varying from ridiculously difficult to very easy (according to the 'what am I missing about Hyper-V thread").
Setup VM replication between the servers. I believe I'd need to use certificates to authenticate the servers to each other to allow this. Seems straightforward enough. So some VMs replicated from A to B and some from B to A, but both hosts have the capacity to run all VMs in the case one goes down. It's not HA but probably enough for our needs if replication is every 10 minutes or so.
Oh and I've already got Veeam backup and replication (a 30 vm license) which gives me good agentless backup options for Hyper-V. 5-nine manager or something like it would likely be required as well. I'd need less technical people to be able to do some management when I'm not around.
Use Starwind. I'm in conversation with Starwind about their Hyper Converged Appliance. Hypervisor options for the HCA seem to be VMWare or Hyper V. The Starwind tech was suggesting that the free Hyper-V Server wouldn't be suitable for the HCA for licensing reasons so I'd need to pay for 2 Windows Standard licenses on top of the Starwind prices or run VMWare essentials plus. VMWare would be a little more expensive but I do have more experience with it. This is quite a bit more expensive than option 1 but provides HA obviously which would be nice but not essential.
Is there something else I should be looking at that provides option 1 or 2 at lesser cost/complexity?
Thanks all