Recent content by alexskysilk

"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 work. you can have as high as 16TB usable capacity...

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: auto bond0 iface bond0 inet manual...

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 know how fortigate os commands differ for switches...

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 external or ceph, and disk health is monitored by my...

your steps appear to have worked; reboot and it should be good.

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 can assist.

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 utility. If your volumeset is single parity (eg...

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 needs to be plugged in to work.

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 both ports are on the same vlan.

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 eno2 bond-miimon 100 bond-mode...

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 appropriate method. If LACP is available to you...

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 improve virtual machine performance? if not, bigger...

I wasnt even aware... oh well. it wasnt a particularly useful thing to do.

really? why is that? I havent tried this on pve9 but I dont see the network stack changing that dramatically...