Changing Hardware - leads to configuration and access disaster

[Dart]

Hi, I'm kind of a beginner to Proxmox, but I have some basic knowledge about hypervisors and such.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I also read the following thread, marked as solved, which gives me a very bad "feeling" regarding proxmox' behavior on system faults, stability, and hardware changes.
https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-cannot-access-lan-after-hardware-change-help.86442/

It's about how changing hardware leads to a non-accessible system.
I can also confirm this behavior for my side multiple times.

I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong; maybe I'm missing some information, but in regards to the severity to this problem, I'm also shocked there is actually no real additional information about this behavior.
My experience regarding hardware change on Proxmox can't be legit or intentional; if so, then I'm shocked and disillusioned about the design of Proxmox.
I know, this problem —renumbered PCIe devices— maybe is inherited by Debian, but even this can't be the answer or solution for an hypervisor!

The main problem:
How can it be possible that, for example, an added or removed piece of hardware, like a GPU oder NIC leads to an instant disaster, like I cannot access the server anymore via network because the network stack is renumbered or whatever?
So changing hardware for whatever good or bad/forced reason destroys an essential proxmox configuration!
I can't even believe this is intentional and true for such a delicate, centric piece of infrastructure like a hypervisor.
So it's intentional that I can't even access my server via web-gui anymore when I change the hardware, to maybe reconfigure the hardware?


Another example:
What if I change some hardware in an headless system? It wouldn't be possible to reconfigure it anymore; there would be no console.


Am I missing something? Or is this really "selled as" an intentional solution/design?
I'm also shocked that I didn't find more information about this realy problematic behavior.

Solution?:
If some PCI information changes after hardware change, why there is at least no automatic remapping/reconfiguration for essential hardware like the main NIC/management network?

 

[bbgeek17]

Hi @Dart , welcome to the forum.

I think this part of the Release Notes might be helpful: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Roadmap#Proxmox_VE_8.2:~:text=Kernel: Change in Network Interface Names

Note the the reference documentation mentioned in the middle which explains how you can pin your network interfaces

Hope this helps to alleviate your disappointment.

Best

---

Blockbridge : Ultra low latency all-NVME shared storage for Proxmox - https://www.blockbridge.com/proxmox

 

[Dart]

Hi @bbgeek17,
Thanks for your information; that led me in the right direction.
Sadly, the information/documentation isn't very clear about the problem that "hardware changes" are included to this kind of still problematic and intricate behaviour.

It says: "... This way, you can avoid naming changes due to kernel updates, driver updates, or newer versions of the naming scheme."
"Hardware change" is not mentioned clearly there.
After this, now I know "updates or newer versions of the naming scheme" are kind of included into this.

So I guess I have to adapt, but I still can't believe why not every piece of hardware is pinned by default after first sight by debian/proxmox to some default, and only if you want or are forced to change it, because of a failure, you change or reorder it manually.
What if there is a NIC failure to the management NIC and you pin-matched it to the MAC address? Everything else would change too if you just had to replace the NIC. It just makes no sense, do you have to define a probalby never used spare/fallback for this?

Solution?:
If everything is pinned by default on first sight, the system automatically sees the diff after a failure and can make a guess for the new NIC if the previous Management NIC is missing.
For every other NIC it makes sense to pin it by default too. I guess this current behavior could be a real security issue too.

However, thanks for the fast answer.
Or maybe someone has additional Infomation that I'am missing out?