Search results

I am using a project called Benji. Benji doesn't like the operations feature. To work around this I used the proxmox disk move feature to move the 2 disks to other storage, then back to Ceph. Operations feature was gone after that and all has been solid. No idea how 2 of 600 RBD's had that...

Im still fighting performance issues. I have found stop/start only works for a few days. These are very active CentOS7 apache servers, but performance is night and day on the 5.15 kernels.

Does anyone know of a easy way to have the installer use normal LVM instead of LVM-Thin?

That makes sense. So I guess the question is, why didn't the backup run? As you can see prox1 started its backup on Sunday at 12am, prox2 is no were to be seen. Backup job has Node: set to All

All of my cluster is on the following. root@cephmon:~# ceph -v ceph version 16.2.9 (a569859f5e07da0c4c39da81d5fb5675cd95da49) pacific (stable) This entire cluster started on Nautilus so I would think I should be aok.

We have a ceph cluster with roughly 600 RBD's. 2 of the 600 randomly have a new feature which is breaking our backup's. root@cephmon:~# rbd info Cloud-Ceph1/vm-134-disk-0 rbd image 'vm-134-disk-0': size 1000 GiB in 256000 objects order 22 (4 MiB objects)...

I have a small 2 node cluster for some random VM's that had a storage issue last night. Was hoping to utilize my VM backups, but found some VM's are being skipped during the backup job with the following. What would make these VM's external? This was all working about 2 months ago, then it...

I just found out that its actually happening in all situations with live migration. I agree, start/stop is great, but we have a cluster with almost 600 VM's and depend on live migration heavily for uptime. We have a mix of Intel 2nd/3rd Gen Xeon's. I can reproduce the issue going...

Wanted to report back. Did some more testing. Here is what I pinned down. - Slowness only happens on VM's which are migrated - VM is aok if its freshly started on a host running the newer 6.2.x kernel - I was in the process of upgrading packages and moving over to 6.2.x when I hit this bug...

Looks like the latest 6.2 kernel still has some major performance issues in our enviroment just like 6.1. We are seeing a load increase of 30-50% on pretty much all VM's running on hosts with the 6.2.x kernel If we go back to 5.15.x all is well. Check out the screen shot, our load has...

New kernel is working as expected. Appreciate it guys!

This ended up being a cable issue. However it does look like these NIC's don't allow proxmox to boot with the latest 5.15 and 6.x kernels.

It just so happens that this server also has Intel E810 based NIC's (Both 25G and 100G). They are working great with the ice drivers. Moving data as we speak over the E810 NIC's on the 5.15.74-1-pve kernel. .. root@gppctestprox:~# lspci | grep Ethernet 11:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel...

Its a Gen 10 with 4x Intel Gold 6254's. Bios is a little older but not to bad (2022), might be one new revision. After lots of testing I have narrowed it down to the below NIC. 13:00.0 Ethernet controller: Broadcom Inc. and subsidiaries NetXtreme II BCM57810 10 Gigabit Ethernet (rev 10)...

Thats it. It was a brand new install as well. It would sit for 5-10 minutes, then it would print those hung task messages and that was it. I let it sit for 10+ minutes, but there was nothing else after that. I reinstalled a 2nd time and same issue. If there is anything else I can provide...

The 5.15.102-1-pve kernel fails to boot on HP DL 560's. I haven't had a chance to test other hardware, but it definitely has issues on the 560. Hoping this kernel doesn't get released to the enterprise repo's as we have ALOT of 560's in production. Attached a screen shot of what happens...

Anyone else using any of these E810 based NICs (25G & 100G)? They are using the ice driver. They show up in proxmox and look ok, but I can't for the life of me get them to light up. Nothing in dmesg or any of the logs about transceiver mis matches. Figured id see if anyone else is...

Alot of this can be done with groups as is.

These are Gen2 Intels which from what I understand are not effected.

Ended up running into a significant CPU performance isssue on the 6.1 kernel. Looks like we will be forced back to 5.13.x at this point. What a mess.