Re: [pve-devel] roadmap for proxmox 6 ?

2019-02-05 Thread Alexandre DERUMIER
>>besides a cleaner interface, do you know some other improvements blockdev >>provides? I known it's improve mirroring, when we can pass argument to target storage. mirroring preserving sparseness (mainly for nbd) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232914 luks support (If we wanted to

Re: [pve-devel] [RFC 1/1 v2 installer] add button for renewing dhcp lease

2019-02-05 Thread Thomas Lamprecht
Am 2/4/19 um 2:02 PM schrieb Oguz Bektas: > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > --- > proxinstall | 15 +++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) looks OK, did you run into the situation where multiple dhclient processes listened on a single interface or is the killall just precautionary?

Re: [pve-devel] roadmap for proxmox 6 ?

2019-02-05 Thread Thomas Lamprecht
Hi! Am 2/5/19 um 2:47 PM schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER:> Hi, > > as debian buster is coming, do you have already a roadmap for proxmox6 ? > nothing fully fleshed out/set in stone so below is nothing fixed :) > > Here some features I have in mind: > > - corosync 3 yes, as talked off-list this

[pve-devel] Plan to add "Add Sound Card"

2019-02-05 Thread Gilberto Nunes
Hi there Is there any plan to put a resource in Add to add sound card? Thanks --- Gilberto Nunes Ferreira (47) 3025-5907 (47) 99676-7530 - Whatsapp / Telegram Skype: gilberto.nunes36 ___ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com

[pve-devel] roadmap for proxmox 6 ?

2019-02-05 Thread Alexandre DERUMIER
Hi, as debian buster is coming, do you have already a roadmap for proxmox6 ? Here some features I have in mind: - corosync 3 - qemu 3.x - ifupdown2 by default ? (need to test openvswitch) - I'll try to work on vxlan (+frr) /vlan, /etc/pve/networks.cfg. I'll try to send prelimaries patches

Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v3] Fix #2051: preserve DB/WAL disk on destroy

2019-02-05 Thread Thomas Lamprecht
Am 2/5/19 um 11:31 AM schrieb Alwin Antreich: > 'pveceph osd destroy --cleanup' > > When executing the command above, all disks associated with the OSD are > at the moment wiped with dd (incl. separate disks with DB/WAL). > > The patch adds the ability to 'wipe_disks' to wipe the partition

Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-firewall] log reject : add space after policy REJECT like drop

2019-02-05 Thread Thomas Lamprecht
Am 2/5/19 um 11:22 AM schrieb Alexandre Derumier: > For log consistency and parsing, we already have a space after "policy DROP: " > but not REJECT > > ex: > > DROP > 135 6 tap135i1-IN 05/Feb/2019:10:59:55 +0100 policy DROP: IN=. > > REJECT > 232 6 tap232i1-IN 05/Feb/2019:10:59:28 +0100

[pve-devel] [PATCH manager v3] Fix #2051: preserve DB/WAL disk on destroy

2019-02-05 Thread Alwin Antreich
'pveceph osd destroy --cleanup' When executing the command above, all disks associated with the OSD are at the moment wiped with dd (incl. separate disks with DB/WAL). The patch adds the ability to 'wipe_disks' to wipe the partition instead of the whole disk. Signed-off-by: Alwin Antreich ---

[pve-devel] [PATCH pve-firewall] log reject : add space after policy REJECT like drop

2019-02-05 Thread Alexandre Derumier
For log consistency and parsing, we already have a space after "policy DROP: " but not REJECT ex: DROP 135 6 tap135i1-IN 05/Feb/2019:10:59:55 +0100 policy DROP: IN=. REJECT 232 6 tap232i1-IN 05/Feb/2019:10:59:28 +0100 policy REJECT:IN= --- src/PVE/Firewall.pm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1

Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v5 qemu-server 0/3] online vm migration to external cluster

2019-02-05 Thread David Limbeck
Not yet, sorry. Will get to it as soon as possible. On 2/5/19 6:21 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: Hi, any comments for the v5 ? - Mail original - De: "Alexandre Derumier" À: "pve-devel" Cc: "Alexandre Derumier" Envoyé: Mardi 29 Janvier 2019 02:20:37 Objet: [PATCH v5 qemu-server

[pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] fix #2043: vm start: always stop existing systemd scopes

2019-02-05 Thread Thomas Lamprecht
commit 3c23aa808ccc946bad92d9bc63b6f833c61d0f52 tried to fix a issue where after a stop mode backup a scope could still linger around, but it actually removed the wrong check. If we want to remove a lingering, not yet cleaned up, scope we need to check if said scope exists not if a VM process is