Re: [PVE-User] pve-csync version of pve-zsync?

2018-03-13 Thread Alexandre DERUMIER
Hi, I have plans to implement storage replication for rbd in proxmox, like for zfs export|import. (with rbd export-diff |rbd import-diff ) I'll try to work on it next month. I'm not sure that currently a plugin infrastructe in done in code, and that it's able to manage storages with differents

Re: [PVE-User] pve-csync version of pve-zsync?

2018-03-13 Thread Mark Adams
Hi Alwin, I might have to take another look at it, but have you actually done this with 2 proxmox clusters? I can't remember the exact part I got stuck on as it was quite a while ago, but it wasn't as straight forward as you suggest. I think you couldn't use the same cluster name, which in turn

Re: [PVE-User] pve-csync version of pve-zsync?

2018-03-13 Thread Alwin Antreich
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 04:51:32PM +, Mark Adams wrote: > Hi Alwin, > > The last I looked at it, rbd mirror only worked if you had different > cluster names. Tried to get it working with proxmox but to no avail, > without really messing with how proxmox uses ceph I'm not sure it's > feasible,

[PVE-User] Preparing Linux Debian VM template

2018-03-13 Thread Marek Salwerowicz
Hi list, Is there any Debian tool that helps with  "generic template" preparation ? I would like to have tool that would wipe basic information (ssh keys, hostname, ip configuration, etc.) and during first boot from template asked for them ? Or maybe there is other approach ? Has anyone

[PVE-User] Cannot create container with Proxmox 4.4 and CEPH 12.2.2

2018-03-13 Thread Iztok Gregori
Hi! I'm not sure I've found a bug or I'm missing something. Today I've tried to create a new LXC container on a CEPH RBD storage and the creation failed with the output: pvedaemon[19601]: Could not parse Ceph version: 'ceph version 12.2.2 (cf0baba3b47f9427c6c97e2144b094b7e5ba) luminous

Re: [PVE-User] 4.15 based test kernel for PVE 5.x available

2018-03-13 Thread Alexandre DERUMIER
>>yes, it has KPTI for v3/Meltdown, full RETPOLINE for v2, and masking of >>pointers passed from user space via array_index_mask_nospec for v1. >>it does not include the originally embargoed IBRS/IBPB patch set used by >>RH/Suse/Canonical in the first waves of mitigation. some parts of that