From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <devzero@web.de> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D52ED69DE3 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:26:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BC08E36211 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:25:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.17.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 0732E36205 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:25:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1614770756; bh=yyw2y7MZQ1uz5ZEYzPKnXUbSkfKtlQaKSaIKHfTLJSI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=O1yZbJjJtOwNZkODCtvpBWqjo86f91hGUsSTW+uNR5pK2nrUaS99Z05w3zyioqcoY hhAE89GAu5IXrsizwcDFb0xmUTdRRw7gp6F6P/XpJ/yTYS16TJXYoX9OQ9Ei/x4ipu V61D66a1+FUMw8cRgyJVir6T/LZemLUdrFU8D9pY= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from Rolands-MacBook-Pro.cybercon.de ([5.147.247.76]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb102 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lmu6S-1lj2pE09Yy-00h2O8; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:25:56 +0100 To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>, aderumier@odiso.com References: <22970BC8-1653-4B05-AB1C-99E140F8856A@web.de> <05bd2df1ffd2a5762c149abefc7f1afe2b3326b6.camel@odiso.com> From: Roland <devzero@web.de> Message-ID: <caf40561-4659-da76-38f0-df012d973a34@web.de> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:25:59 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <05bd2df1ffd2a5762c149abefc7f1afe2b3326b6.camel@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:fV/CGlsSl9Mht33tkzt7lTCzot3CfRguV2mVxVG6h0QkJwzdGIq +7/NyJFVMWL004gq9HHRsRm7gCNkqBWqJydtKeeUuCObaqAyUMhU5S8mhpJ88qORuAt8TW4 83R2z41zIb3FhTsUAP4Zy2D6kHIMlqOz8zuA2z73MOOgVkRWRUnNRlPeBAjmREjiFrEsSru YMkWxczqwV9SZEC447K8A== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:S02uroZq4MY=:ZHaPlUy0t6FQy3A11OBXov XpRWqRW4EguvTdfvoWaevMvJaaXUUIZzL4n78GIkrmJJ2AuSmgE6wbWA4g4a0EuNBtULn1smq R13oLWihVECOSJRQvwf0u/DjP8BxL3rULVCg04Ejqe9RxSz4j6bQ93vaAElFvo5kA+y323tYC V3o26fuMci9jhHcQ4Ud9P+i2JuCGv5NN202T5Nve/bSR3z/0y8GPHq52sh+fNOvsmmTBHNUHi ko8HmIKCOVMaMzEzVV9/aQYqxKuk56OO+h9xKd0i2NcTkcrnQT7j20PZROpdyvjfJ1e/iCMux 66g62SyXBSb2yB+y2Ux1jLk+tFRAdN1mf+CIw/TJDBvj6gIAvGMVFtmrKSM94plmbjLCOBVqD 0L4bKxwjdyltju4Zr+9kBkdGO7Wfjt3qoQJLyi8CKrMzRbO+nbT0ALaZ2cO2k+O+c8xbtXCuE h5v+8OnKzzyNblF6nnDhM4ACSegw+nTVWwxUlrjoo8XrrcCtSqa21Irl6uL+lhVvZ1tNJDJYS XOOfTu7bKfxc9TEs6CLrrZyI0ZeggcOSOTd7ePaxMu5hd2j5E94jKIN643CENEJM4idTrU4dz zd5w5q9BcDSsJB+VSVjA14HY/eFIKlCDKNvYm/YlKWDR40uendF53DI/rSKxxdhMMryXnqqqc 4A4MRvFXQYKtR/Aq7TduyXglDHo8CTruhty9tUp+NGO9dEuBaKBxkZv7O7xlubNjho5rmTCfR gZ1VxpgfhCHpreUX+wQB/d5Lthhsl4iB5fXhqgDWOmP54+XQyCcuzvDFoPJQKyBiP6kwQZ+5Z +hMG1rGRTbb2C/8QuIsPYKD+TjcB3RxfsqHVfJKaUhQlEpKNklU4k4iAbRYBPea0/Y7Teeam+ FLJ0BWjTvLE90h87OcYA== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.350 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS 0.8 Spam that uses ascii formatting tricks NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 0.001 Good reputation (+3) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.001 Mailspike good senders SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] proxmox serverfarm - how? X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:26:28 -0000 the question for me is, what can go wrong this way or in what way clustering conflicts with the idea of running a "temporary server farm" which is shutdown completely for long periods. what happens for example if i set "pvecm expected 1"=C2=A0 and startup/shutdown different individual servers or pairs of servers? i think that won't fit... when setting "pvecm expected 1" , wouldn't we need to know which server(s) of the farm was being used last and shutdown last? so, rethinking about this - doesn't it make sense to have something up and running independently of that farm for maintaining cluster state/node information? what about adding one or two rasberry pi or two virtual maschines "on some other, independent pve systems" as quorum/qdevice , setting "pvecm expected 1 or 2" then and have proper backup for these ? can we use/install virtual instances of proxmox for this ? regards roland Am 03.03.21 um 09:28 schrieb aderumier@odiso.com: > Hi, if you have something central, knowning exactly how much nodes are > currently running, and stop/starting them dynamically > > you could play with "pvecm expected X" =C2=A0to tell how many vote you n= eed > to have quorum. > > (for example, you have 10 nodes builded in corosync, =C2=A0you shutdown = 5 of > them --> so no quorum, =C2=A0 just use "pvecm expected 5") > > > Le mercredi 03 mars 2021 =C3=A0 08:25 +0100, Roland privat a =C3=A9crit= =C2=A0: >> hello, >> >> we want to build an experimental dynamic =E2=80=9Edatacenter=E2=80=9C i= n our >> makerspace (mostly for academic purpose), where the number of nodes >> online depends on energy availability, heat demand, processing >> demand, .... , but if i see this right a proxmox cluster needs half >> of the nodes +1 online to have quorum, i.e. for example we wont be >> able to start a vm if only two out of 10 nodes are online. >> >> what=E2=80=98s the best way to solve this, i.e. what is the most >> secure/consistent way? >> >> eg for a cluster of 10 nodes, what about adding 10 virtual proxmox >> dummy nodes or qdevice instances in another location (so one single >> physical host online has quorum) instead of tuning node/quorum number >> in corosync configuration? >> >> what we want is a =E2=80=9Efarm=E2=80=9C but not a cluster. but we want= centralized >> management and vm migration. >> >> regards >> roland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pve-user mailing list >> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user