On 09/10/2015 06:44 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
@@ -889,6 +897,7 @@ my $update_vm_api = sub {
$modified->{$opt} = 1;
$conf = PVE::QemuServer::load_config($vmid); # update/reload
if ($opt =~ m/^unused/) {
+
Hi,
I appreciate your interest in PVE and the open source development.
To point it out first
http://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation may help you somewhat.
While it may look like a lot at the beginning after you initial setup a
machine (maybe an VM with nested Proxmox) building
applied
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
That's right!
2015-09-11 13:07 GMT-03:00 Dietmar Maurer :
> > I perform a shutdown and a startup in both server, and in PVE02, I get
> this:
>
> I will try to reproduce - maybe related to the recent kernel update...
> I assume you run kernel 4.2 on both nodes?
>
>
--
Why is this thread duplicated on both user and developer list?
Slightly annoying.
--
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen
Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael rasmussen cc
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get=0xD3C9A00E
mir datanom net
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get=0xE501F51C
> I perform a shutdown and a startup in both server, and in PVE02, I get this:
I will try to reproduce - maybe related to the recent kernel update...
I assume you run kernel 4.2 on both nodes?
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
Hi,
Upfront note for the PVE developer list: forgot to hit "reply all" so if
mark isn't subscribed to the devel list he didn't get the reply at all,
thus this second email, sorry my bad. :)
I appreciate your interest in PVE and the open source development.
To point it out first
drbdmanage works perfect when I try remove "dead" volume... I used --force
option... I don't remember if this options already exist in previously
versions, but now I am able to remove volumes from drbd...
thanks
2015-09-10 12:05 GMT-03:00 Dietmar Maurer :
> > qcow2, as a
Thank you for your response.
I have already setup a VM and been able to compile stable-3 packages.
Still trying to get my head around the commands for git though, but I
guess that will come with time.
I thought that Graphite and influxdb was for centralised collection of
the metrics and
Hi all...
I deploy two servers here, with PVE 4 and DRBD9.
Same days ago, I was able to install and perform same live migration.
Now,I can do it anymore...
I deploy a new VM with Windows XP, just for test but I can't migrate...
I get this error:
Sep 11 10:57:03 starting migration of VM 101 to
>>The first stage of what I want to do is make a way (possibly a plugin) that
>>enables Proxmox to collect a variable number of metrics per node so that it
>>could be stored in a RRD or sent to something like Graphite. Assuming my
>>understanding to Graphite and influxdb are correct.
yes.
> As can you see, the disc 101 exist in PVE01 but not in PVE02.
> How can I force drbdmanage to sync or whatever to show disc 101 in both
> servers??
Is that reproducible? Did you wait until initial sync was finished?
Any hints in /var/log/syslog?
___
I perform a shutdown and a startup in both server, and in PVE02, I get this:
Sep 11 11:32:12 pve02 kernel: [ 3411.819799] drbd .drbdctrl/0 drbd0 pve01:
uuid_compare()=-100 by rule 100
Sep 11 11:32:12 pve02 kernel: [ 3411.819810] drbd .drbdctrl/0 drbd0 pve01:
helper command: /sbin/drbdadm
Tell Data::Dumper to sort the keys before dumping. That fixes
the manager status mess of jumping keys.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht
---
src/PVE/HA/Sim/RTHardware.pm | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Sim/RTHardware.pm
Yes... I wait for that... It's work fine about 2/3 day ago...
Since yesterday, I get this odd behavior...
Right now, I try create other VM, and get this in PVE01:
pve01:/var/log# tail -f /var/log/syslog | grep drbd
Sep 11 11:21:44 pve01 kernel: [ 2838.206262] drbd .drbdctrl: Preparing
RFC, variable names and some log message may change or get removed.
We implement recovery policies almost identical to rgmanager
There are the following policies which kick in on an failed
service start:
* restart:restart an service on the same node, whereas restarts
are
The relocate implementation of this RFC may result in an relocate to an
node which was already tried. Also when the service is placed in an
group with less members then the number of MAX_RELOCATE, or even only
one node member, this results also in two tries.
This behavior is known to me and
> The relocate implementation of this RFC may result in an relocate to an
> node which was already tried. Also when the service is placed in an
> group with less members then the number of MAX_RELOCATE, or even only
> one node member, this results also in two tries.
>
> This behavior is known
18 matches
Mail list logo