> I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox as
> extra layer of protection ?
AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing.
But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems..
___
pve-devel mailing list
> I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox as
> extra layer of protection ?
>>AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing.
>>But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems..
Yes, sure. I'm really to have to 2 differents sources of verifica
On 9/14/20 10:27 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>> I wonder if something like pacemaker sbd could be implemented in proxmox as
>> extra layer of protection ?
>
>>> AFAIK Thomas already has patches to implement active fencing.
>
>>> But IMHO this will not solve the corosync problems..
>
> Yes,
Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas
---
www/manager6/lxc/ResourceEdit.js | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/www/manager6/lxc/ResourceEdit.js b/www/manager6/lxc/ResourceEdit.js
index 476a9a28..0e110e60 100644
--- a/www/manager6/lxc/ResourceEdit.js
+++ b/www/manager6/lxc/Res
pve-container:
Oguz Bektas (1):
fix #2938: increase limit of max cores from 128 to 512
src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
pve-manager:
Oguz Bektas (1):
lxc: increase limit of max cores from 128 to 512
www/manager6/lxc/ResourceEdit.js | 2 +-
1
Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas
---
src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm
index 4cd669c..223b10e 100644
--- a/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm
+++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm
@@ -401,14 +401,14 @@ my $confdesc = {
didnt find any other problems besides the mount issue with ext4
Tested-by: Oguz Bektas
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:40:48PM +0200, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> this patchset updates lxc to 4.0.4
>
> tested on my system and a virtual ceph-cluster (for ha and migration tests),
> created some backups o
>>Did you get in contact with knet/corosync devs about this?
>>Because, it may well be something their stack is better at handling it, maybe
>>there's also really still a bug, or bad behaviour on some edge cases...
not yet, I would like to have more infos to submit, because I'm blind.
I have en
- remove chrono dependency
- depend on proxmox 0.3.8
- remove epoch_now, epoch_now_u64 and epoch_now_f64
- remove tm_editor (moved to proxmox crate)
- use new helpers from proxmox 0.3.8
* epoch_i64 and epoch_f64
* parse_rfc3339
* epoch_to_rfc3339_utc
* strftime_local
- BackupDir change
> Now, that logging work, I'm also seeeing pmxcfs errors when corosync is
> stopping.
> (But no pmxcfs shutdown log)
>
> Do you think it's possible to have a clean shutdown of pmxcfs first, before
> stopping corosync ?
This is by intention - we do not want to stop pmxcfs only because coorosync
>>This is by intention - we do not want to stop pmxcfs only because coorosync
>>service stops.
Yes, but at shutdown, it could be great to stop pmxcfs before corosync ?
I ask the question, because the 2 times I have problem, it was when shutting
down a server.
So maybe some strange behaviour occ
some comments/nits inline, looks good to me otherwise.
On September 15, 2020 7:30 am, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> - remove chrono dependency
>
> - depend on proxmox 0.3.8
>
> - remove epoch_now, epoch_now_u64 and epoch_now_f64
>
> - remove tm_editor (moved to proxmox crate)
>
> - use new helpers f
12 matches
Mail list logo
