Search results

Hi, Per (Valid since: 2 July 2025) : https://canonical.com/legal/ubuntu-pro-description Also from the same document : Best regards,

Hi, Check your APT sources (using WebUI or CLI), you shouldn't have multiple input/files for the same repository. Best regards,

Hi, Specs wise, the SA500 is more a consumer drive than an enterprise drive (usage of pseudo-cache and ~0.35 DWPD) Cf : https://www.techpowerup.com/ssd-specs/western-digital-sa500-500-gb.d836 A refurbished enterprise SSD would be better Best regards,

Hi, You should always check updates (with "apt update" or WebGUI), because PVE9 is fairly new and get bugfix almost every week. Best regards,

Hi, The latest version (in no-subscription) is pve-manager/9.0.6 which fix your issue. It's fixed in pve-container (6.0.10), which was released the 07-Sep-2025 (in no-subscription). Best regards,

Hi, Does your PVE up to date ? Best regards,

Hi, The error says you have the same repository in multiple files. Remove "/etc/apt/sources.list.d/pve-enterprise.sources" and the error should be gone. Best regards,

Hi, because of this certainly : no-subscription is almost always newer than enterprise repository So if after the initial upgrade you change it to enterprise repository, it will not work because you will have mismatch versions. Best regards,

Hi, Only if you create 2 clusters (1 per site), otherwise the problem is still the same, for 6 nodes to have a quorum you need 4 nodes reachable. If you really want to have 1 cluster, with 2 sites and 2 nodes per site, here is some advice : 1 - Make sur you have low latency between the 2 sites...

Hi, with 4 nodes if 2 are down all your cluster is down, because the quorum need over 50% vote, so you should always want an odd number (3/5/7/9 etc.) Best regards,

Hi, You should ask the author/maintainer of "proxmoxer library". Best regards,

Hi, Does you install come from an OVH template ? Best regards,

Hi, post the result of the command. Best regards,

Hi, Agree. But other solution than public wildcard exists to use in envrionnement when the PVE are not expected to be reachable from the internet and are in a closed network. If the "fear" is only the browser warning because it's a self-signed versus giving OSINT data for bad actors (the point...

Hi, well, you said this : So that is why, with your existing license, the best is to do 16+8 (x2) that leave you 16 for a third node, or you can do 3 nodes with 16 cores; it all depends on your budget, the number of windows VMs and the load that you’re expecting on your nodes. yes Best regards,

Hi, Well, he shouldn't have, if you have 3 license for 16 core, you can assign license only to one host you cannot split the 16 cores between 2 different host (I think it's explicated in Microsoft docs). For your use case I would use one 16 core + one 8core, so like that you have your 24 cores...

Hi, Technically speaking the license are per host, so your license should cover 2 hosts with 24 cores (and no you cannot split like you did, you should have 4 licenses). And technically speaking you can only licence your node which are used to host windows VMs. Source : profesionnal experience...

Hi, Never said this VM should be on the hypervisor, just put this on separate hardware (just common sense at this point). i never said it's dangerous. My point it's just dumb to use public providers to generate a certificate to use it on lan-only infra. On our infra we use, the certificate...

Hi, Sorry I don't see the issue. Many tools/Ways exist to do this even in non-domain network. Few examples : - Bastion VM -> Only this VM can access hypervisor infrastructure (and session can be monitored/registered) and has the certificate trusted - Software to manage computers, like WAPT...

Hi, In that case, why use public CA, it's better to use internal CA which are not known from the internet. If you don't want to publicly "leak" data, why using public infrastructure ? Best regards,