Search results

Only thing that could have been useful here is the actual error logs :eyes: Not even a mention of the LSI controller used either, but if old enough, perhaps this bug may not outright crash during initialization if the the device is passed-thru to a VM with a software-defined KVM CPU featureset...

I'd rather resources spun on an uid/gid resource mapping interface integrated into PVE… wouldn't that be glorious ? :dream:

Yeah, why I posted it for you above: [...] ########the following command "resizes" the virtual disk size########## root@richie:~# zfs set refquota=8G rpool/data/subvol-122-disk-1 <=======this command [...] ########the following command instructs pvesm to realize the new size by updating the...

UPDATE: so in my case (and yours) the target vol indeed filled up before the move could complete. Turns out the size=nG spec for LXC rootfs/mpX virtual disks stored on a zfs-backed PVE storage pool references only the literal amount of physical blocks that the the LXC's virtual disk consumes...

I see this thread died, but I'm encountering a similar issue. The only difference is moving LXC volume from zfs datastore to lvm-thin datastore, but otherwise identical results, while plenty of free space on /var/lib/lxc/ Please post back if you found a solution, but assume you likely backed up...

Correct. And also for completeness, to shrink an LXC disk on zfs: zfs set quota=<new size> <disk dataset> zfs set refquota=<new size> <disk dataset> pct rescan Example: root@richie:~# grep subvol /etc/pve/lxc/999.conf rootfs: local-zfs:subvol-999-disk-0,mountoptions=noatime,size=4G...

ask microsoft ? :shrug:

As of today (Win11 24H2), the Virtio-SCSI storage driver is: virtio-win/vioscsi/w11/amd64 And the memory ballooning driver is: virtio-win/Ballon/w11/amd64

[Not a hijack, just wanted to thank @t.lamprecht for this valuable info] I found this post after thinking this fresh PVE install I did was broken. I <3 the idea of an efficient unified index of of events rather than the age-old practice of storing massive amounts of free-form text to wade...

Just to be clear, the snapshot taken prior to initiating a move of a detached VD does not contain the detached VD entries. Once the move completes, the move operation goes and updates only the primary section of the VM, regardless, which it would still do after the move completes, even if the VD...

The move will either succeed, or not succeed, depending on the move results, and the move process will either update the config if the move succeeds, or not, if it fails. In neither case does the result affect any active state of the VM (or CT for that matter) nor the activity of it's attached...

I am testing a production workflow we are attempting to build using PVE and am a bit confused... Part of the workflow is to take advantage of PVE to manage migration of virtual disks between storage tiers. However, it appears our workflow is dead in the water because PVE will not allow us to...

Came here searching for same... glad a fix is imminent -=dave

I'm here literally because I have given up on PBS. The Push datastore sync feature is apparently not quite as solid as I'd have hoped, as my local Debian/PBS LXC (installed 2022, upgraded continually to current Deb12/PBS 3.3.2) which has nearly 3yrs of backups over 5TB on it, all the while with...

For live VMs/LXCs, that's not possible, but it should definitely be an option for offline CTs/VMs. I have a separate volume for each docker image that I'm running within a single LXC and currently have to manually take a zfs snapshot of the specific docker image's virtual disk volume prior to...

Added my $0.02 on the ticket too. Bummer.

I think it's clear what we are looking for. How would we as a community effectively communicate this desire to the Proxmox team? Nodes have very specific changes from base installation for many HW configs so rather than having to continually update/test an Ansible playbook, a simple...

Ah, that’s a great test feature I haven’t seen before (and searching seems to back up that it’s not super common knowledge). Thanks. When I was testing HW NVMe RAID0 on a single-cpu Bronze X11 system, we had to drop a second cpu in just to saturate the card (9460-16i) with 12x P4500 4TB on the...

It's a wonder what either of you is talking about, because the ARC is integral to ZFS and cannot be "removed", only adjusted in size.

Can you please explain how the change helps to make Proxmox not run the processor at max frequency ? @spirit stated the change is to "force max frequencies" (which is exactly opposite of what this thread is about).