Interesting solution. nearly the same storage efficiency of 2:1 but with enough parity to survive a node out. Are you using this for virtualization workloads? can you share some performance metrics?
It doesnt work like that :)
"performance" is a term thrown around a lot without any real meaning. How much performance do you get from your oven, or your sink? any performance would be with what you cook or clean with them, not the devices...
"optimal" isnt very meaninful without a use case. what you describe would be served by any combination since you dont have any performance or fault tolerance requirements to speak of, so the only thing remaining is usable capacity.
that would...
a look at the logs would be helpful. you can also use mount -vvv to manually mount and see what errors pop up.
Proxmox also helpfully has a German forum for German speakers.
Not entirely sure what passive LACP is, but for your purposes its not a valid option. Consult your switch documentation on what it expects on the other end, but in my experience they all respect layer2+3 (I could be wrong.)
so to reiterate...
pay attention to your bond stanza.
If you're trying to connect it to a lagg, use the lacp config. If you're connecting to access ports, use the active/backup configuration.
In either case, your switch should have a flow analysis tool (I dont...
The problem is that PVE is meant to be flexible and used with various methods of storage. I tend to agree that the zfs and disk sections ought to be combined into one, but for my use case I dont use ANY of those at all as my storage is either...
Then you have an easy guideline. Odds are it just means that if you were allowed to multitenant clients on the same metal with VMWare you can do it with PVE and remain compliant. If you have specific concerns, post them and see if the community...
A word about spares: spares should be avoided, especially for your use case. The reason for that is that spares are spinning the whole time alongside with your "operating" drives, which means they are having miles put on them without any real...
Thats actually not necessary. PVE will automatically deploy interfaces.new on boot if present. just create the file and reboot. Incidentally, this configuration will work the same as the original one in any case, since only one of the bond slaves...
correct
correct
You really should. if both eno1 and eno2 go to the same switch in an active/passive configuration it doesn't actually provide any utility over using just a single nic.
correct. this configuration works on any switch as long as...
here's what to do.
create a new file named /etc/network/interfaces.new with the following content:
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
iface eno1 inet manual
iface eno2 inet manual
auto bond0
iface bond0 inet manual
bond-slaves eno1...
this doesn't work like you think. In effect, this creates a loop which will either have one interface blocked by STP, or the whole switch would be shut down. In other words, this is a poor substitute for an active/passive bond.
That is a more...
Most likely yes.
It tooks me a second to read the above discussion when I realized they're no longer speaking in terms of your question. The answer to your question depends on other factors you didnt mention, namely:
1. are you trying to...
Which code are you meaning? https://github.com/Meliox/PVE-mods doesn't address Andreas Steinels (aka @LnxBil ) argument that typical servers have a lot of temperature sensors which would clutter the UI and for monitoring it's best to setup a...
One thing I can say with certainty- this is caused by something that is present on your system, which was not when the OS was initially installed. To verify, install the OS (PVE) from scratch and set up your zpool, and see if it "disappears."