Search results

No, I'm not using NFS anymore.

Well, I meant if it only affects the benchmark, or if it also does anything in terms of the ZFS pool. A fast benchmark is useless if the VMs are still slow. But I don't think I'll put any more effort into it, since I don't get any benefit from ZFS anyway.

@Falk R. No, would this affect the benchmark, or could this also be used to tweak the datastore itself? Because the VMs are running very slow on a ZFS pool based on PM893. I ended up using mdadm software raid instead, now the VMs are running very fast

I have now removed the zpool to be able to test different things. When I run the fio test directly on the SSD, the speed is actually quite good. Or at least much better than with ZFS. But what I still don't quite understand: ZFS is just as fast in write on a single disk as it is in ZFS RAID...

Ich schleppe das selbe Problem seit paar Monaten vor mir her, heute mach ich das hier auf, und sehe dann deins :) https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/zfs-slow-writes-on-samsung-pm893.131949/ ZFS arbeitet mit 8k blöcken, daher solltest du dein Benchmark auch mit 8k machen

Hello, I have a Dell R630 server (without HW storage controller) with 4x Samsung PM893 480GB, on which I run a ZFS. Unfortunately I have very poor write performance: fio --ioengine=libaio --filename=/ZFS-2TB_RAID0_SSD/fiofile --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=8K --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1...

Seems like exclusion is not supported... wanted to use "vm/(?!762\b)\d+" to exclude vm/762 parameter verification errors group-filter: regex parse error: vm/(?!762\b)\d+ ^^^ error: look-around, including look-ahead and look-behind, is not supported

I did the restart today, now it's working again. I could not upgrade to version 7 due to lack of time, maybe next week.

Okay, then I have to find a date to go to the server, and then I should build a PiKVM as soon as possible I think posting the container config is not helping here, as this affects all unprotected containers, and especially completely new created containers with default settings, so they just...

Usually I do, but in this case it's not the cause of the problem, because I upgraded it after the error occured.

I did apt update && apt dist-upgrade to see if it resolves the problem, but it didn't, maybe thats the cause for the different kernels? The last reboot was approx. 1 month ago, I have not run the server for a year without rebooting, there have been a few reboots and upgrades in that time :D I...

Hi, My setup has been running for almost a year without any problems, but all of a sudden lxc goes crazy. I know, I still use version 6, an upgrade is still pending. But in this state I would not like to upgrade it. How do these problems manifest themselves: I cannot connect to a...

The correct command is "zfs set refreservation=0G NVMe/vm-901-disk-0" my bad *facepalm*

Unfortunately that didn't work either :( root@pve-lab:~# zfs get all NVMe/vm-901-disk-0 | grep used NVMe/vm-901-disk-0 used 82.5G - NVMe/vm-901-disk-0 usedbysnapshots 0B - NVMe/vm-901-disk-0 usedbydataset 12.9G...

Ok looks like migrating to another storage and back does not do the trick before: root@pve-lab:~# zfs get all NVMe/vm-580-disk-0 | grep used NVMe/vm-580-disk-0 used 10.3G - NVMe/vm-580-disk-0 usedbysnapshots 0B - NVMe/vm-580-disk-0...

I've set it to sparse 1 now, and migrate the disks from that datastore to another and then back, so it's a new disk, right? (zfs set reservation=0 NVMe/vm-540-disk-1 doesn't change anything)

Hi, I noticed my manually created zfs pool is not sparse (thin). Is there an easy way to activate it afterwards? I could easily add "sparse 1" to my storage config, but would that work, and most important, not destroy the data?

Okay the upgrade went fine, but for some reason all my post-up rules don't work anymore, e.g. auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 10.10.10.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge-ports none bridge-stp off bridge-fd 0 post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s...

Hmm I didnt change anything, the content is [Link] NamePolicy=kernel database onboard slot path MACAddressPolicy=persistent I'll just see what happens after upgrading to 6 :)

Thanks, it changed to eth0. I don't know if there was a bios update, as it's just a kvm which i run proxmox on, maybe the host did the updates. I saw in dmesg (i think) that eth0 was renamed to ens3, so i thought everything is as it's supposed to be. ip a didnt show ens3 or eth0, probably...