Search results

Just to make that clear again: the networt link is not saturated. Monitoring shows an average of around 400 MBit/s on a GBit interface. Which means it is quite far away from a bandwith problem. So the real question here is: why are packets lost at all? And still: how does corosync really "find...

kernel is 6.17.13-2-pve, exactly the one pve-enterprise installs. The modules is indeed available Thanks

I wanted to try the problem situation with a bbr congestion variant. But I found that the kernel delivered with proxmox does not supply this congestion protocol. Why is this?

That is not the complete truth. Look at this: --- 192.168.192.250 Ping-Statistiken --- 14000 Pakete übertragen, 13862 empfangen, 0.985714% packet loss, time 14133836ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.103/1.065/3.615/1.127 ms This is quite a long running ping during nfs load. If there was really heavy...

No, the fiber link is dedicated, the copper is also used for other purposes. I checked that in detail and had to find out that the latest kernel networking is not really as good as one might think - after all those years. If there is nfs traffic (ok, heavy nfs traffic) going on on the link ICMPs...

There is definitely no address conflict.

Hello all, I recently experience a problem with corosync showing link flapping, but it seems to me that these are really fake. Neither the corresponding switch shows a link problem, nor the kernels of the boxes (3-box cluster). I use a 10G fiber main links and 1G copper backup links. Flapping...

We could not use pve8 because of the old zfs version included there. We incorporated a zfs volume from another setup which only worked with the zfs version of pve9. Mount was not possible with pve8.

I would love to see some official statement on this question because absolutely everybody with a cluster runs into this while upgrading to pve9. Me I'd like to add a new pve9 node to an existing pve8 cluster ... Migration from pve8 guest to pve9 node is also an important point.

there is no good way for me to reproduce that situation, as I already converted the setup to 9 and turned the list files into sources as recommended. Since this was the primary intent I only tried to follow the messages from pve8to9 as close as possible, which brought me here.

The thing is: on my side adding it on every entry with debian.org did not work correctly. But when I added it only on the first occurrence (just like example above) it did work.

Thank you for resurrection. Why can't the wiki state where exactly the "non-free-firmware" has to be added (for non-debianists) ?

Hello all, I will shortly try to remove an old NFS server with ZFS filebase and replace it with a new proxmox system (re-using the ZFS HDDs/filebase). I am currently thinking of two options: 1) Put ZFS completely on the host and make the NFS server a VM with a virtual disk being the ZFS pool...

I can tell you, using the script made by Drallas from above in this thread got me a working setup. At least in regard of the virtiofs part. There is a "my guide" link above, walk to that. It installs a hookscript, and you have to reboot the vm twice probably, but then it should work.

Thank you for thinking about the problem. unfortunately 9p is no solution either because it has the same problem with export via nfs than the thought-to-be-replacement virtiofs. In the longrun I will probably end up with reformatting the HDs and using ZFS instead. But at this point I simply have...

Hm, unfortunately the USB passthrough was not my first choice for solving the setup in question. It is only a currently working one. In fact I would have liked to passthrough the HDs as virtiofs. But since this cannot be easily exported via nfs, and nobody could tell me so far how to make a...

No, have not so far. But that would not be very useful anyway as there are only HDs connected, and they lack the necessary bandwidth for the test. But I do think that passthrough USB ports should come out on the vm exactly as they were on the host, else it is no real passthrough.

Hello all, I try to passthrough some USB ports from host to linux vm and found that they all come out with 5000M speed and not 10G, although they show 10G when used on the host. Is there a way to change this behaviour? Has anybody seen 10G USB devices inside a vm? Thank you for comments.

Hello, thank you for posting the content from red hat, only I doubt the given cause. Clearly NFS V2/3 use persistent file handles. But V4 should be able to provide volatile file handles. The problem I have is that I cannot find any docs for linux how you force NFSv4 to always give volatile...

This seems to be not true. At least this is what https://access.redhat.com/solutions/7000411 seems to say, as it marks a "solution verified". I cannot tell you how though, because the red hat content is closed...