Latest activity
-
BNo, it did not. It does make me worry about the coverage of Proxmox's automated test set on containers though.
-
Bbeisser reacted to Johannes S's post in the thread Proxmox 9.1.5 breaks LXC mount points? with
Like.
Then I don't get, why this issue shows " that such things will really keep proxmox far from "production ready" ( from this thread) unless it is stated somewhere". It's clearly stated at each login that one shouldn't use no-sub in production. So... -
Bbeisser reacted to Johannes S's post in the thread Proxmox 9.1.5 breaks LXC mount points? with Like.
This was exactly my point I wanted to make since somebody in this thread argued that things like the current isse might led to companies considering PVE not "production-ready" for enterprise environments. And this is nonsense: In an enterprise...
-
Mmajestic reacted to fstrankowski's post in the thread Mountpoints for LXC containers broken after update with Like.
It is a bug and has since been fixed (fix waiting approval). Non volume mountpoints (e.g. externally mounted) are excluded in the future from changing file-permissions when bound. Means attribute-preservation will get removed for these kind of...
-
JI hope I'm mistaken, but it seems like the content describes a single VM mirroring virtual disks located on two NAS devices. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. If the understanding is correct, this configuration should not be used because delays...
-
JJohannes S replied to the thread Proxmox 9.1.5 breaks LXC mount points?.This was exactly my point I wanted to make since somebody in this thread argued that things like the current isse might led to companies considering PVE not "production-ready" for enterprise environments. And this is nonsense: In an enterprise...
-
JIsn't the point of the test & non-subscription repos that bugs can happen and thus us reporting them and it getting fixed is part of the process? I would go to enterprise branch but for my homelab purposes I'm not sure if even the community...
-
Tticnitsi replied to the thread Proxmox 9.1 and vlans stopped working..I am also having this issue, fresh install of 9.1 today even after upgrading via apt to 9.1.5, any of my Tagged vms dont work. im coming off a hardware failure and 3 installs so im hoping to find a fix that doesn't include a 4th install of 9.0...
-
Hhnguk replied to the thread Proxmox 9.1.5 breaks LXC mount points?.Isn't the point of the test & non-subscription repos that bugs can happen and thus us reporting them and it getting fixed is part of the process? I would go to enterprise branch but for my homelab purposes I'm not sure if even the community...
-
fstrankowski replied to the thread [SOLVED] Proxmox und VM auf einem Laufwerk?.Ich weiß ja nicht, mit welchem Dateisystem du Proxmox jetzt installiert hast :-) Entweder Du hast "local-lvm", oder "local-zfs" bei Dir, da werden die VMs dann mittels Blockstorage angelegt. -
Bbranpurn replied to the thread [SOLVED] Anti-Cheat KVM Settings.I added this line and it wiped it except for UUID, so I grabbed my actual UUID with `dmidecode -s system-uuid` ... (Edit: did it through GUI it stayed) I added a randomized Intel MAC address ... I added `args: -cpu host,-hypervisor,kvm=off` ...
-
RRheinold replied to the thread [SOLVED] Proxmox und VM auf einem Laufwerk?.ok, ich habe es versucht. Ich habe Proxmox auf einer Partion von 50Gb (von 900GB) installiert. Aber wie komme ich dann an den Rest unter Proxmox dran? In der Weboberfläche sehe ich nichts, was auf den Rest von den 900GB hinweisen könnte. Die...
-
Is this just wishful thinking? Or is it a procedure you've verified, backed by evidence and proven results, that anyone would find convincing? I, for one, would not entrust my systems to the company that proposed this. -
Ok, aber für solche Dateien hat man doch in der Regel ein NAS. Ich habe selbst noch nie eine Nextcloud „gebraucht“, weil ich meine Daten bequem auf dem NAS ablegen kann. Ich persönlich würde meine Daten nicht direkt auf Proxmox speichern, sondern... -
Uuzumo replied to the thread Shared Remote ZFS Storage.Is this just wishful thinking? Or is it a procedure you've verified, backed by evidence and proven results, that anyone would find convincing? I, for one, would not entrust my systems to the company that proposed this.
-
UdoB reacted to Kingneutron's post in the thread Raid1 boot array, drive replacement procedure with Like.
Forget btrfs and go with zfs mirror, it's supported in the installer and there is actual official doc on it. Tested and works. https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/pve-admin-guide.html#sysadmin_zfs_change_failed_dev...
-
EElompenta reacted to 0x2c4's post in the thread [SOLVED] How to remove LVM-thin and then expand local with Like.
WOW, three lines of code, and the job is done: lvremove /dev/pve/data lvresize -l +100%FREE /dev/pve/root resize2fs /dev/mapper/pve-root Massive THANK YOU :)
-
EFor others coming here for the same question: local-lvm - Remove local-lvm from the storage configuration of the Datacenter - Execute the following commands on the node's console: lvremove /dev/pve/data lvresize -l +100%FREE /dev/pve/root...
-
You confuse lxcs ( Linux containers) with lxd ( Software for managing vms and lxcs) Both lxd ( and it's fork incus) and ProxmoxVE manage vms and lxcs. Lxcs are more lightweight than vms but only work for Linux applications since they run directly...
-
Falk R. reacted to Johannes S's post in the thread [SOLVED] auf gleichem PBS (v3) langsamen Storage zum langzeit Archivieren verwenden with Like.
Was? Das prunen geht eigentlich recht schnell. Die garbage-collection oder verify-Job werden bei hdds aber immer lange dauern, weil beim PBS der Datenbestand in zig kleine Dateien ( Chunks ) aufgeteilt wird und jeder (!) chunk dafür eingelesen...