Search results

I can run the experiment again tomorrow. it was a test pool to test just these kind of scenarios syslog: Nov 23 20:14:15 pveasus smartd[3939]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], removed ATA device: No such device. But ZFS and thus also ZED did not detect it thus no email was sent. I tried pulling a drive...

I am running proxmox 7.2.11 with zfs-zed/stable,now 2.1.6-pve1 amd64 zfs-initramfs/stable,now 2.1.6-pve1 all zfsutils-linux/stable,now 2.1.6-pve1 amd64 After taking out the only disk out of a hot swap bay in a single disk pool. zpool status still listed the pool as online including that disk...

or if someone knows of a linux distro with mirrored zfs root installer that would also solve the problem

tried all steps ib the link above. rebooted and can still log into localhost:8006 pve still running fine. apt remove --purge proxmox-ve Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done Package 'proxmox-ve' is not installed, so not removed 0...

SR-IOV is a luxury. Not needed. virtio is more than enough for basic needs.

I am passing through an actual USB dongle for WAP purposes, and a PCIe wireless card for WAP purposes. The 2 are very distinct. I recommend giving the USB route a try as it is low cost and very flexible.

Mind you though that I am no longer trying. I have gotten it running for ages in the mean time ;)

it's glorious to have an OpenWrt running 'virtually' (pun intended) without restrictions ;) USB WAP or PCIe WAP are the only way to go for me going forward. It's soo muych easier than having to deal with several hardware routers through the house.

it's super simple to virtualize OpenWrt. It might take a few tries though as getting the NICS to play nice might not be intuitive from the get go.

I never did fix the NTP issue and the host app armor issue. So I abandoned that route :( as I finally figured that most if not all of my client devices could not use wifi6 and/or WPA3 anyway. So wanting kernel support for my WIFI6 PCIe devices no longer seemed to be paramount. I kept using...

I used the ubuntu 22.04.1 ISO and things worked out great. I marked the thread as solved

yes indeed. Success!! this time!. I tried once before but got stuck then. I just tried again with the ubuntu 22.04.1 ISO. I ran into the same issue as earlier as no pool is available, but this time figured to import it. which worked. rolled back, exported the pool and everything works like a...

uggg. just revisited this zfs rescue disk only to find it last being updated in 2014. so I won't even try. grrrr. back to square one ;(

thought so. But I am not expecting any love from the devs as they seem to not support this scenario and rather have people use the backup server. Once back from holiday I'll give this one a try https://www.complete.org/zfs-rescue-disc/

I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense. If only we had a rescue disk that actually was able to rollback the snapshots created using the pve 7.1 iso zfs version. I'll echo again. Should anyone run into a fix for this then please let the world know.

I see, well in that case aren't we going about it coming from a wrong angle? when I run mount | grep pve-1 i get rpool/ROOT/pve-1 on / type zfs (rw,relatime,xattr,noacl) as far as I understood it means that rpool/ROOT/pve-1 is somehow linked to the top most directory ( / ), thus also including...

I am sad to learn it is still broken :( I decided to wait until pve 7.2 rescue/installer was out in the hopes things will be fixed by then but I see now it is already released so once I am back from holiday I will try that once. Or is that the one you used? as you did say 'latest ISO/USB' If...

appearantly things are still in limbo for root zfs rollback please see https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/rescue-mode-with-root-on-zfs-trouble.107172/ are you sure those directories are not also part of the rpool/ROOT/pve-1 directory? and as such snapshotted along with a root snapshot?

but even though the disks are of good grade. would not this mean just more wear and tear?

indeed, it's more every 5 seconds than 4