Search results

I was wondering, with ceph-server being a tech preview still, would it possibly be more stable to just install the normal ceph packages and forgo the proxmox GUI integration? Possibly when the RHEL7 3.10 kernel comes around...? I know theres a deadlock kernel issue between locally mapping an RBD...

Thats the least likely cause. If you believe that to be the case you might need to gather as much details as possible and send it to the ceph mailing list / bugtracker. Before that you may want to check if you're running a recent enough version though. Please be advised that the ceph-server from...

oh wow how did I miss that? I even looked at that page... anyhow, thanks!

Hi. Let's say you might use IPMI for fencing and since you don't fully trust IPMI, you'd also want to be able to fence via a PDU if IPMI doesn't react. Is it possible to configure multiple (primary+backup) fencing devices like this?

according to the ceph docs:

There are multiple possible reasons for the "got timeout" response you're seing: - The cluster has lost quorum (<50% of monitors up) - one (or more) of the OSDs are full (ceph health detail will tell) (- the monitor IPs are wrong / not reachable, probably doesnt apply here) uhm... well...

Have you checked whether theres a cron job calling dhclient maybe? crontab -e or /etc/cron.*

Not sure I understand your problem correctly, but: static IP configurations for anything and everything. always. alternatively a semi-static setup with static MAC addresses where you assign static IP addresses via static MAC<->IP matches on your DHCP server

I was trying to get any kind of information whether firefly can be considered stable yet (tried via ceph IRC) or whether inktank has started supporting it yet, but nobody seems to be able/willing to answer that, so I am also in the dark whether firefly is safe to use yet.

You can't get to 10TB. Ceph has thresholds for that. at 85% (default value iirc, on any given OSD) Ceph will put out a warning, and at 95% it will flat out refuse to write to the OSD to prevent data loss. Both thresholds would look like this: $> ceph health HEALTH_ERR 1 nearfull osds, 1...

Damnit. All this time Ive been using brctl/vconfig to manually hot-add bridges

There should be no conceptual problem in doing such a thing. You have to be aware however, that this NFS system (baremetal/VM) will be a single point of failure if you do not plan on setting up a redundant NFS cluster. This would then introduce the problem that you need multiple RBDs for this...

Never seen that. Seems to be an ancient error message from antique unix systems meaning that the file in question is already opened by another process. You can use lsof to figure out which. But that also most likely means that the file is actually still present, otherwise it couldn't be in use...

yes, that what I had said earlier and thats what the inciga guys have always ensured.

This looks okay to me, but you can maybe try to directly copy only init: cp /var/lib/vz/private/100/sbin/init /var/lib/vz/private/101/sbin/ The errors you posted tell me that the /sbin/init file is not there. that won't work, init is a file, not a folder ;) init is a binary file. Opening it is...

to be honest, local tomshardware sites (i.e. not .com) are known for doing bad (as in: using terrible settings, not using the same settings for the same tests and so on) reviews and such, so that really doesn't say anything, as the others have already pointed out

The container's files are stored in /var/lib/vz/private/101/ if you did not chance it. There you need to check if the sbin/init file is still there and executable. This file is required

hm you should probably create a new thread for this. But before doing that you should check, whether the /sbin/init file (of the container!) is still there and executable. You can check for that in /var/lib/vz/private/101/ (sbin/init), assuming you don't store your containers in a different...

Tried zabbix and nagios, stuck with nagios. well not nagios itself because it doesn't get updated at all, but rather icinga. nagios OMD (the OMD guys added their flavour to nagios) would be an alternative to icinga. great thing is, it doesn't exactly matter which nagios implementation you use...

Which "competitors" are you speaking of? Because VMware Vsphere hasn't changed its GUI for quite a while. Also why would you ask for a UI downgrade? That's what icinga (just to name one) is for. Proxmox is a virtualisation wrapper/clustering solution and as such this (to me anyways) seems out...