@Pete-S said in Live migration Proxmox?:

@JaredBusch said in Live migration Proxmox?:

@Pete-S That is what the docs say. I have never tried.

But also, why not have everything in the cluster? What is the need to make them "individual" hosts?

Pools (resource pools) as they are called in xenserver/xcp-ng will put at lot of restrictions on the hosts.

Pools are managed as one entity (through the pool master) and works best when you have shared storage.

They are however a huge hassle when you don't have shared storage. So hosts that use local storage and are individual are best kept as separate hosts. So in this case everything started out as pools but have been migrated to individual hosts.

Maybe it works differently in Proxmox, I've only used it in the lab on a single host.

I manage multiple servers through the single IP of the cluster, but you can still directly access the individual nodes if you desire.

I do not know about resource pools and such as I have not used those with Proxmox yet. Just multiple servers in a cluster, but no shared resources more than a setup for replication at one place. But that one is only for replication, so not a good example.

It finally finished..
5624900b-cb96-41ee-b8f1-29373e262692-image.png

While I was waiting, I looked at pvecm status and found out it thought I had 4 nodes (see expected votes), when I only have 2 nodes.

76a4d9f9-18ba-4fe5-af47-4ea037892bfc-image.png

I used pvecm expected 2 on both and suddenly the updates moved on and I was able to log in to the web interface immediately.
d5ecd18f-8e07-4222-afea-0b04d215775c-image.png

In the web interface, it showed a pve3 and pve4. These were some test setups I did months ago.
I deleted the nodes from the CLI and everything looks clean again.
782c49e5-1457-499d-8c58-5afbc3c2efda-image.png

@scottalanmiller said in ProxMox eating SSDs?:

@dashrender said in ProxMox eating SSDs?:

Anyone run into this issue on enterprise hardware?

There is no "issue". Even those that claim that they are running into it, it's consumer drives with HA logging going to those drives. Its' nothing to do with ProxMox, it's just standard, everyday CoroSync logging. The people saying "this is system administration basics" are correct.

Or just understanding what hardware you need for the job.

All VM guest OS will write to the same drive as well. So 10 guests will generate 10 times as many writes + whatever the hypervisor itself is generating.

I just checked and Crucial MX500 have 0.2 DWPD, which is not bad for a consumer drive.
But compare that to enterprise drives that usually start at:

1 DWPD (read-intensive) 3 DWPD (mixed use) 10 to 100 DWPD (write intensive)

I would move PBS to the PVE environment since your just dumping data on the NAS anyways. At least then it’s replicated. Don’t forget to backup your encryption key.

@scottalanmiller said in Proxmox in production questions:

@dustinb3403 said in Proxmox in production questions:

@itivan80 said in Proxmox in production questions:

I am using a promox server with the following raid-RAIDZ-3. A variation on RAID-5, triple parity. Requires at least 5 disks. It works awesome for my VMs. It protects me fully if one disk goes down.

Raid 5 does this natively, how is this some amazing feature?

RAID 5 is single parity.
RAID 6 is double parity.
RAID 7 is triple parity.

This is RAID 7.

Sorry, I could've swore this said protects from 1 drive failure....

@rjt said in Adding remote storage to Proxmox:

@jaredbusch nfs on top of ZFS.
ZFS should be the underlying block/fs for everything whether a single hard drive, block storage like iSCSi, file storage such as NFS or CIFS. I like TrueNAS for this purpose. As you can see, I love ZFS. My problem is I also love CentOS. Need to figure out easy ways to get ZFS on CentOS. We should all write a letter to Larry asking him to open up the license.

Most of us here do not subscribe to The Cult of ZFS. Yes, it has a place, but not nearly like it's made out to be.

I'll try and make a cleaner guide later..

First, spin up your ProxmoxVE system. During the install wizard, I left the boot drive as LVM but did change it to XFS instead of ext4. You do not setup secondary drives during the install wizard. Once up, you need to create the ZFS store on each system, named the same, prior to joining the cluster. The replication process wants the ZFS pool to be named the same on both systems and you cannot name it the same (at least in the GUI) if it already exists anywhere in the cluster.
3c9d3871-d8f6-4da0-93fd-22bf8526ef6b-image.png Then from the GUI, go to the disks of system 1.
67ae2a41-d84b-4fbc-9cd0-4dea04cb5465-image.png then click on ZFS and create the storage pool name it, single disk, compression off.
4379c8d3-edf1-4733-95ce-d3bc5f2400e9-image.png wait for it to show normal.
145f1381-2d1e-4215-b29c-30e2227c00d2-image.png then repeat the process on the second system. make sure to use the same name. Now create the cluster and join the second system to the cluster.
e9401472-ad68-433a-b569-5cc14f21552d-image.png You will not see the storage on ZFS storage on system 2 when it first loads up.
0e6e610a-21fd-4317-9f15-336eec787af3-image.png But it does exist if you look.
d5efc711-8126-4e30-955a-9d0deba7db10-image.png To make it available, go to storage under datacenter.
545a0b08-72e0-4912-bf3c-f10ce2527d73-image.png edit the existing "data" and add pve2
d8022847-45ea-46ce-be11-807f01e51449-image.png now it will show up and be available for use.
a68a5b5c-3024-4650-869b-c36065713c87-image.png

Is this perfect? No. but it is how I was able to get it setup to work.

The manual leave out quite a bit of specifics. on how to do things, but goes into detail on the technical of things.

@DustinB3403
I don't doubt it.
There wasn't really any added complexity though. PVE was installed with all the defaults.

It definitely seems joined. I cannot even do anything form the IP of the second instance now.
c0a3fa85-5326-4648-a318-08221c193f5a-image.png

But it is all enabled from the primary.
e0e8003c-9e55-44b2-9914-93dd29ab656f-image.png

@JaredBusch said in Proxmox pricing:

@stacksofplates said in Proxmox pricing:

but users on your LAN need a link or some way of knowing it exists

Users of the things running on it do not.

If they're interacting with the hypervisor. Not like windows users. But anyone using the hypervisor would. Should have been a little clearer.

@marcinozga said in Proxmox initial setup annoyances:

You may have to clear browser cache to fully get rid of the nag. Mine kept coming back, clearing caches got rid of it.

I run this prior to ever opening the web interface, so never an issue.

That's awesome.

TY @black3dynamite

@Pete-S said in Associate existing drive with new Proxmox VM:

You have that info in the thread below from the other day:
https://mangolassi.it/topic/21751/import-a-qcow2-into-proxmox

Basically you need to put it in the right place and it has to have the right name (depending on config file, what filesystem, VM ID)

So the problem that I've seen from this is that it causes PM to get confused and not be able to display the storage data. Everything works, it just can't tell you where files are or delete unused space or whatever.

Just install one of the old supported OSes on another drive, reboot and run the firmware update. It's a self extracting executable.

With HP and Dell, it's their intention to support you by providing an additional layer of management on top of the actual manufacturers product. But you have to be in warranty to be able to leverage that support. If you intend to run equipment longer than the 5 year warranty, don't use Dell or HP or live without any firmware upgrades or support. If you use Dell or HP, replace hardware when it's out of warranty.

HP Gen8 servers are from 2012-2013 so 7-8 years old and not the best candidates for new installations.

@jaredbusch said in Import a QCOW2 Into Proxmox:

@dashrender said in Import a QCOW2 Into Proxmox:

@scottalanmiller said in Import a QCOW2 Into Proxmox:

@jaredbusch good point, Linux doesn't "detect non-local" like Windows does.

ug.. what a pain that is!

ummm wut?

that windows detects SMB shares as remote.

@JaredBusch https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/ZFS_on_Linux

chrome_2b6U1mR9nN.png

@matteo-nunziati said in Calling Debian Stretch & Mellanox Experts:

@FATeknollogee rolling means they constantly upgrade sw when ready. The opposite is sw which sticks at a given version and is subject to security fixes only.

Exactly. In Windows terms, it would be like MS Office updating from 2013 to 2016 automatically on any given day. Tumbleweed tends to update a couple times a week, but the updates are tiny. Just whatever applications have a new release and have been tested get released as they are ready, not in blocks together.

The big difference is that it is updates to packages and releases of new packages as they are available, not just patches that are provided. All OSes release patches on a regular basis as needed, or weekly. But rolling releases actually update the software versions all the time.