Search results

Hi, we just moved a 2-node proxmox 1.9 to a 3-node proxmox 2.1 cluster - and things look really pretty. Currently, we only see an oddity which we do not really understand: migration of containers do not work - unless the container's config manually is modified with the line DISK_QUOTA=no...

well, you can't really assign an "IP to FC" - though there is a standard (IPFC) for that, i do not know of any non-proprietary implementation. Think of FC as a sort of SCSI - similar to iSCSI, you can do FC-over-IP (FCoE), but not the opposite. If you want to use IP and 10GBit, use...

yes, we do also observe this; we created a little watchdog to detect this, which kills vmtar automatically. Backup notification still reports "successful" in this case...

nice - but be careful when using "failover domains", because the above might try to move a vm to a node outside of the defined failover domain, which could cause troubles... (e.g. we have a quorum-only node without kvm module) another question would be - how to revert the "maintenance mode"...

hm, perhaps "sort of"; we run a test platform still based on proxmox 1.9, 2 nodes, 2 DRBD devices (Pri/Pri). On each DRBD device, apart from the LVM storages for VMs, theres also one "static" LV, partitioned and formatted for openvz ("/var/lib/vz"). Of course, each node only mounts its own...

works great - thank you!

ah, ok - "this is not yet working in the GUI" - i missed that "in the GUI"-part... ;-) thx.

may i ask - how did you 'flag' that 3rd 'node C' to be sort of dummy/quorum-only? What i see in a 2-node-HA-setup-with-3rd-as-quorum is, that in case 'node A' fails, the cluster (randomly?) tries to make "node C" taking over the VMs. Though this quite immediately fails, and the correct 'node B'...

cool, thanks for this info; this changes quite a bit for me - seems i should intensify testing a bit... :-)

just curious - you're running twelve nodes in six drbd-pairs, i assume? I wasn't aware that 2.0 can handle this; since for each two nodes the drbd device is the "shared storage", how does this harmonize with the other pairs? I thought storage could be marked as either "shared" or "local" for the...

in many cases you are not bound to having *power* fencing available, and "network fencing" could be appropriate as well. That means, the failed node can be "isolated" from the cluster, e.g. by using a network switch to down the ports. In theory, similar could be achieved by dropping the network...

Re: Memory errors: NON-FATAL recoverable Err=0x10000800 (Non-Aliased Uncorrectable Pa ...doubt that; looks more like that "famous" EDAC bug documented in several RHEL tickets; afair "solution" was "unload edac module" ;-) - i'm not aware that it ever did something useful anyway... We also had...

great stuff! some "cosmetic issues" though: - it seems not to be possible to identify 32- or 64-Bit templates in template selection - after having downloaded a template, the description seems to get lost; only the filename remains to identify templates both could "hurt" if more than "a few"...

ah, i see... (perhaps worth a hint in message...)

user stuff looks quite nice - though i seem to have a little issue; trying to add a user based on PAM, i only and always get create user failed: command '/usr/sbin/usermod -p '$5$eoeBVGSZ$mppiCb2wN3CCMZOsY8gYQcRSltGvoWOnEWAG07z1XM/' gnagna' failed: exit code 6 (500) (which makes somehow...

..this might be related to that problem: http://www.motobit.com/help/scptutl/pa98.htm

nevermind, nothing broke (so far :) - it was just noticable that our test server for the first time got a kernel with a "suffix" other than "-##" number, and that a sort of "version downgrade" took place (55 -> 56, 32-7 -> 32-6)... [or did you mean that our prior version (-7) was from the...

Yes...

hm, was this intended? a week ago: [INSTALL, DEPENDENCIES] pve-kernel-2.6.32-7-pve [UPGRADE] proxmox-ve-2.6.32 1.9-55 -> 1.9-56 now: [REMOVE, NOT USED] pve-kernel-2.6.32-7-pve [UPGRADE] proxmox-ve-2.6.32 1.9-56 -> 1.9-55+ovzfix-1 #pveversion -v pve-kernel-2.6.32-6-pve: 2.6.32-55+ovzfix-1...

...i'm running a similar configuration (2 nodes - 2 drbd devs) with after-sb-0pri discard-node-[node-name]; in drbd.conf, using the 'unused' node in each resource. Isn't this the same as above, but "automatic"?