Search results

It's explicitly explained in the PVE 8 to 9 documentation [1]: that package has been split in two on Trixie, hence systemd-boot isn't needed. I've upgraded some clusters already and removed that package when pve8to9 suggested to and the boot up correctly from any of the ZFS boot disks. [1]...

I reported this already [1] and it is claimed to be fixed in PVE9.1 released today, although haven't tested it yet. [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6941

You need two corosync links. For 12 nodes on gigabit I would use dedicated links for both, just in case, even if having it just for Link0 would be enough. Max I've got in production with gigabit corosync is 8 hosts, no problems at all.

Given the logs you posted, I would start by removing docker from that host (it's not officially supported) and not exposing critical services like ssh to the internet. You also mention "VNC", which makes me think maybe you installed PVE on top of Debian and might be using a desktop enviroment...

Why?

There is RSTP [1] Maybe, but it does allow to use both links simultaneously while on RTSP only one is in use and the other is fallback only. Which you should have anyway, connected to two switches with MLAG/stacking to avoid the network being an SPOF. But yes, you would need 4 nics per host...

If Ceph doesn't let you write is because some PG(s) don't have enough OSD to fulfill the size/min.size set on a pool. In a 3 host Ceph cluster, for that to happen you either have to: Lose 2 hosts: you won't have quorum neither on Ceph nor on PVE and your VMs won't work until at least one host...

That data means little if you don't post the exact fio test you ran. AFAIR, the benchmark that Ceph does is a 4k write bench to find out the IOps capacity of the drive. You should bench that with fio. Also, I would run the same bench on a host/disk that seems to provide proper performance and...

Tell Ceph to benchmark those drives again on OSD start and restart the service when appropriate: ceph config set osd osd_mclock_force_run_benchmark_on_init true There's also another ceph tell like command to run a benchmark right now, but I don't remember it and may also be affected by real...

Those PVE logs only show that PVE is removing the network interfaces related to VMID 101 and 106. Check event log inside the VM. I have some Win2025 test VMs running 24x7 both on PVE8.4 and PVE9 without such issue. Although doesn't seem to be your case, triple-check there's no OOM events with...

Windows does that (assign an APIPA address) when the IP is in use somewhere in the network and some device replies to the ARP discover for the address you've entered in the configuration.

I may be missing something here, but keep in mind that files != zvol: you can't use neither the script nor zfs-rewrite to make VMs disk(s) "move" to use the newly added vdev. It would work for something like a PBS datastore. These options could work: Rewriting data inside the VMs VM...

I don't agree: you have 3 copies of your data, you have host HA, there is no SPOF and you can easily grow up if/when needed. With proper sizing you can even tolerate the loss of some OSD in any host and still allow Ceph to self heal. If you lose a host, everything will still work, albeit with...

Looks like I posted almost at the same time as @dcsapak. Maybe you or @mariol may take a look at the official documentation to mention how to nest pools and that they support permissions inheritance. I've been unable to find that information in the docs.

Since PVE8.1[1] (section "Access control") you can have 3 levels of nested resource pool and apply permissions with inheriatance if you use "propagate". I think this is what you are looking for. Unfortunately, I haven't found that in the manual [2]. The syntax uses slash to create the nested...

For me Option A: 2-node + QDevice with Ceph is the worst idea ever (as explained above), Option D: 3-node with ZFS replication makes no sense having other options, and Option E: 2-node + QDevice with other clustered iSCSI SAN is a no go due to the SAN becoming an SPOF, the lack of a supported...

Placing them in RAID 0 disables pass through and probably removes the partition headers of the drive and / or hides them from the host. Without a more precise answer to "What happens exactly?" its all guessing...

It isn't supported. A RAID 0 disk isn't supported either. You best bet is to change the controller personality to IT mode, if possible. What happens exactly? There has been no change regarding this. My bet is that your drives had some kind of partition signature and they simply didn't show in...

Extending on previous reply, what GC does is: Phase 1: read the index of each backup that contains the list of chunks used by that backup snapshot. Then updates access time on each chunk of that backup snapshot. It does so with each backup snapshot in that datastore (there's only one GC job...

You won't be able to recover space from expired backups and your datastore will eventually become full. GC must work for PBS te behave as it is designed. @Chris , would it be possible to implement an alternate GC that uses modify or creation timestamp instead of access timestamp? In my tests...