Search results

Yes, wasn't that what i wrote - docker/zfs/lxc ;) I know VM's are recommended but they are very resource heavy and feel sluggish, particularly for this situation (with a container environment inside a virtual machine) - but I realize that may just be my subjective impression.

I just wasted a good hour with this. I had an LXC container with Docker, configured with the usual, nesting and unprivileged, running on a 'raw' disk. Since the underlying FS is ZFS I thought I'd go ahead and move it (volume action, move storage) but when I booted the container back up docker...

I set up a nat bridge pretty much exactly as you list it here, but still no cigar. I can ping 10.10.10.1 from the client, I can resolve names (though it appears to do that throught the IPv6 interface) but anything else times out. What am I missing? root@4100:~# ping -q -4 -c1 10.10.10.2 PING...

Thanks, yes that would of course solve the problem but I wasn't actually precise. My objective is also to learn and understand how IPv6 works. Is there no way to do this through the proxmox bridge?

So I have a host with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity - that works. How can I route traffic from a IPv6 client through the hosts IPv4 interface? I've spent hours googling, and it seems this should be possible, for example by tunnelling the traffic through one of several protocols like 6to4...

Thanks man, appreciate the input. Sorry if I didn't express myself very well - I didn't mean that I particularly wanted to use routing, just to be able to reach the internet in the least complicated way. I just use the vmbr0 thingy. So with your updates I got it working to a degree, but I'm...

Just like the one you described... HOST: auto eno1 iface eno1 inet static address 195.xx.yy.205/26 gateway 195.xx.yy.193 up route add -net 195.xx.yy.192 netmask 255.255.255.192 gw 195.xx.yy.193 dev eno1 # route 195.xx.yy.192/26 via 195.xx.yy.193 iface eno1 inet6 static...

same problem here.

With the recent cost increases for IPv4 addresses, and increased adaptation of IPv6 I'm planning towards IPv6-only deployment in OVH. https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/OVH seems to suggest that clients need to have an IPv4 address before an IPv6 can be added. Is it not possible to add an IPv6...

Yep, that worked, thanks!

But I understand there is some problem with swap on ZFS? Is this still an issue?

swapon -s on the host reports nothing. # pct config <redacted> arch: amd64 cores: 2 description: <redacted> features: fuse=1,nesting=1 hostname: host1 memory: 2048 net0: name=eth0,bridge=vmbr0,firewall=1,gw=<redacted>,hwaddr=<redacted>,ip=<redacted>/32,type=veth onboot: 1 ostype: debian rootfs...

Proxmox 6.4 host with ZFS. Created LXC container with 1 GB RAM and 1 GB swap. From Proxmox everything seems fine, but in the container there is just the RAM, no sign of swap. I think there is something about ZFS not using swap, but then why does the GUI allow me to assign it? What is the...

Nope. It's a fresh install of Proxmox.

Thanks, now the zfsutils-linux error has disappeared: root@pve3:~# pveversion -v ... zfsutils-linux: 2.1.4-pve1 On the other hand, I now seems to have lost my zpool. Partitioins created are still there and active, but I think if I reboot the server they might be gone. That's not so good as...

root@pve3:~# pveversion -v proxmox-ve: 7.1-2 (running kernel: 5.13.19-2-pve) pve-manager: 7.1-12 (running version: 7.1-12/b3c09de3) pve-kernel-helper: 7.2-1 pve-kernel-5.13: 7.1-9 pve-kernel-5.13.19-6-pve: 5.13.19-15 pve-kernel-5.13.19-2-pve: 5.13.19-4 ceph-fuse: 15.2.15-pve1 corosync...

Getting zfs error: SMB SID when adding storage. I have my pools root@pve3:~# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT poolz 905G 13.4T 204K /poolz poolz/vmdata 179K 13.4T 179K /poolz/vmdata poolz/vz 179K 1024M 179K /poolz/vz poolz/work 905G 7.12T...

Ok, thanks! :) So just passing through drives and not using PCI then has the implicit advantage of not affecting memory balooning?

Yes, there are only 8 physical ports on the MB - 4 for group 25 and 4 for group 27 - so I guess I'll have to pass through the individual drives or buy a new 5 port controller. How do you pass through individual drives anyway, I don't see any way to do it through the GUI?

Yes that is correct, like I was explaining in my OP 4 of the 5 raidz drives re connected to this SAS/SATA controller and probably can be passed through without problem. The problem is the last drive that seems to share controller with the system drive. What would be the implication of just...