Recent content by alexskysilk

exactly.

You're likely starved for bandwidth. use rate limits to reduce the load. see https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-vzdump.html#_bandwidth_limit

Again, PVE doesnt need to be involved. This is a matter of ceph configuration. You ARE running into the limitation of using a centrally managed ceph.conf, which adds a technical wrinkle. You would need to decouple the nodes individual ceph.conf into separate files PER NODE, at least for one of...

the point about the storage infrastructure is insidious. IF your target cluster is able to attach the storage for the source cluster, it is possible to do this without any data movement; simple MOVE the vmid.conf files to the other cluster. BUT as @bbgeek17 pointed out, this can be more...

This isnt a pve question. PVE doesnt do anything outside of what ceph can do. As long as you build your crush rule to do what you want, the client will respect it too. Assuming you have the following hierarchy: DC Node OSD you just need to stipulate SITE A ceph.conf: [global]...

Bingo. why arent you using those?

Ignorance. although I usually leave room for the possibility the ignorance is mine. there is no more certainty in being wrong then not allowing for a different perspective. believing you're right and being, err, forceful about it says more about you then you perhaps intend. ZFS is powerful. its...

I Imagine you're very popular with you peers. Why bother with a hypervisor then? just set up docker and linux and you're done...

I'm curious- what would be the use case for this? in my view containers exist to isolate an application from the underlying hardware. if a container has access it loses its purpose to exist.

Thats likely not solvable. while the parent hypervisor can emulate an x86 processor it cant provide services that the parent CPU doesnt have.

I cant speak for the idiosyncracies of hdfs, but the approach is supportable in general and raw/qcow2 over nfs is a first class citizen with PVE. Depending on the IOPs capabilities of the back end it may or may not be suitable for virtualization but thats a different discussion. Your specific...

If you're asking whether the claude provided steps are correct- they are, but I would make an adjustment to step 7- specify the destination drive by its uuid/blkid however relevent to how you defined your pool originally, not but drive letter. I didnt actually see a question asked.

These cards support seamless passthrough (JBOD) mode. work fine.

you see the problem now?

You asked for an answer, and you received one. litigating your point of view is not relevant, interesting, or consequential. You dont have to ACCEPT the answer. You choices remain the same as before the wall of text (which I didnt read, apologies.)