Recent content by UdoB

Ja, bei weitem. https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/ZFS_on_Linux#sysadmin_zfs_limit_memory_usage : " ... will be set to 10 % of the installed physical memory," - also vielleicht etwas über 3 GiB.

https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Proxmox_Datacenter_Manager_Beta_Documentation : "...with the objective of providing a centralized overview of all your individual nodes and clusters. It also enables basic management like migrations of virtual guests without any cluster network requirements." :-)

Perhaps you can find some hints here: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/fabu-no-network-connectivity-after-installation-or-after-switching-the-router-can-not-load-the-web-gui-in-a-browser.160091/

Look at: Datacenter --> Metric Server --> Add (Button Drop/Down) --> Open Telemetry. Disclaimer: haven't used it yet...

The 152 G is the virtual disk size, given to the virtual guest. The 58 GB is the space of one (or more, you didn't show us the output of df) filesystem(s). Often both are coupled and give similar size - but that is not a must. Examine the partition table from inside the guest and verify...

You should have installed version 9, not 8.x then! Try to find hints regarding the crashes in the Journal. If it happened during the previous boot you can look at the end of the relevant journal like this: journalctl -b -1 -p warning -e For a description of "-b" etc. consult man journalctl...

Yes. Maybe. No. On the same machine as above: ~# dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/null bs=1M count=5000 5000+0 records in 5000+0 records out 5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB, 4.9 GiB) copied, 8.26672 s, 634 MB/s ~# dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null bs=1M count=5000 5000+0 records in 5000+0 records out...

Yes, that's burned into my own mind too. But "something" has changed. I can read 5 GB from both devices with the same speed: ~# dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/zero bs=1M count=5000 5000+0 records in 5000+0 records out 5242880000 bytes (5.2 GB, 4.9 GiB) copied, 8.25407 s, 635 MB/s ~# dd...

Yes, that's the idea behind "min_size=2" :-)

Well, my whole point in the first post is that the absolute minimum is not a scenario I would like to use. If you think it will work fine for your use case: go for it! (No sarcasm, I mean it!)

That decision is completely up to you :-) You seem to have some other equipment. I would check if a small VM or a container could be placed there - to implement the Quorum Device. On the other hand a physical third server, even if small and old, lifts some restrictions and offers some...

I am not a storage guru, sorry. But yeah, NFS is simple, old+stable and shared. A "simple" setup will create a SPOF though! For PVE I am utilizing ZFS with replication. It gives me the performance of local drives, does not introduce networking dependencies and qualifies as "shared" - as long as...

"Muss" nicht, aber plausibler Weise: ja. man chrony.conf beschreibt die Details.

Yes, I am/was keen to get some of them too. That's really a bummer :-( I wanted to put two to four OSD in each of it, the actual constrains should allow for four. Now look at https://docs.ceph.com/en/mimic/start/hardware-recommendations/#ram : 4 OSD = 4 * 3 to 5 GB = 12 ... 20 GB 1 MON = 2...

Well..., ZFS ARC does shrink if required. But it does so slowly. (Edit: ...and if it is allowed to by "zfs_arc_min" being lower than _max) Too slow to be fast enough if one VM (or any other process) requests too much memory at once. RAM is the one resource you cannot over-commit drastically...