Search results

ich verstehe halt nicht, proxmox ist ein produkt was anders als vmware auch viel im homebereich eingesetzt wird - warum sich proxmox da leicht verdienbares geld entgehen lässt. andere produzieren grossartige software für 14$ ( z.b. https://www.sparklabs.com/viscosity/ ) und für die lohnt es...

find ich persönlich zu teuer für ne "hobby lizenz". das ist mehr als ne microsoft 365 family subscription und in zeiten in denen wohnraum immer unbezahlbarer wird und die leute anfangen den gürtel enger zu schnallen, wird so einen betrag bestimmt kaum jemand aus purer grosszügigkeit und...

also ich verstehe auch nicht so ganz, warum man proxmox nicht auch für den heimgebaruch lizensierbar/erschwinglich macht. ist doch auch geld....

do you have backup fleecing enabled @proxman4 ?

>at least the main Linux enterprise distros do and support it and why is nobody fixing major issues with it then ? https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-RAID-Bug-O-DIRECT https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99171 even bcachefs won't have this issue, so why can an immature filesystem do...

good point !

to be honest, why is pbs using special chars like \ , : or ! at all in filenames ? i have rarely seen so weird file naming and it's really making users life hard when it comes to script processing, i'm sure there are quite some people pulling their hair out on this. let's give an example #...

>You don't need "checksums or redundancy" for swap, that makes little sense. huh? >If using ZFS on HBA, then you (like I said) can reserve a bit of disk space at the end and make swap postinstall, >or put swap on separate dedicated disk that aren't part of the ZFS pool. and if you loose the...

what about zram for swap alternative? it is discouraged here https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Zram but in zfs community it is currently recommended as alternative to swap on zvol : https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/7734#issuecomment-3723591151

that's at least better then nothing, but is no real redundancy but more a comfortability switch, as you won't need maintenance on the machine on bootup when one swap device fails.

you have no redundancy with simple ext4, if your disk crashes and pages are swapped out, your server crashes. that's why i wrote "rundandant disk". nowadays, typically zfs is being used and using mdraid is discouraged with proxmox so i wonder what are the options, i.e. what's the right way....

since swap on zvol still is not in a usable state - what is the recommended proxmoy way to go to have swap on servers with requirement for redundant disk (i.e. raid storage) ?

ah, thanks for the pointer, i searched bugzilla but did miss this ticket. but for my curiousity - when newly pulled data chunks are already verified - why do they appear unverified at the sync target when they had not been verified at the source before ? shouldn't set pbs them as verified then ?

hi, as it seems syncing a datastore to another pbs will "inherit" the verify state of the source snapshot(s) is there a way to unset that verified flag on/after transfer so verify can be run AFTER transfer/sync, so we can verify freshly transferred snapshots and and can use re-verify-after-30d...

ah, ok, that makes sense. thanks for explaining. i removed the atime safety check mark and on the next GC the file got removed.

i have made some weird observation, i cannot explain to myself i switched my repos to encrypted a while ago and all unencrypted backups have been purged and removed by garbage collection. in webui all backup snapshots show up encrypted. for being sure that there is everything encrypted, i...

>i thought that's what i was doing here, reporting it, tbh yes, thanks, but for a bug to be reproduced (which helps a lot resolving it), a "receipe" (i.e. detailed description of setup and what to do) is needed. so if you can provide such, i'm sure it's very welcomed.

there is a bugticket on something hugepage related at https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7052 i you have a reproducer for a hugepage issue, i'm sure it would be worth reporting it

apt install python3-pylibacl ?

ok. thanks for making it clear