From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D843B69A49
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:50:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C2B802C499
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:49:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 85F462C489
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:49:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 51260463B0;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:49:47 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <faab8e4d-873b-8350-a829-1f7cb8003c84@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:49:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/87.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>, Roland <devzero@web.de>
References: <c5dc2a1c-dda5-2290-d15b-9afff30936a8@web.de>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <c5dc2a1c-dda5-2290-d15b-9afff30936a8@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.048 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [PVE-User] proxmox 2-node cluster - PVE install in VM as 3rd
 "quorum" node ?
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: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:50:18 -0000

Hi,

On 10.03.21 22:48, Roland wrote:
> what would you prefer for a 3rd node in a 2-node server scenario at a
> branch office location ?
> 
> 1. proxmox pve install in a virtual machine located on a 3rd server (
> which is already there for special purpose. no VM will run there as
> there is no virtualization when installed as guest)

would really avoid that coupling at all cost.

> 2. proxmox pve install on a thin client with AMD G-Series APU//

can work.

> 
> 3. qdevice daemon on raspberry pi

can work.

> 
> 
> i would probably prefer 1. as a virtual machine is the moest easy to
> setup and most generic approach for me, especially that VM is getting
> backup...

If you want to go the VM way, why not setup the QDevice daemon in there?
That is avoiding full cluster comunication and suggesting the PVE cluster that
this is a full blown node but actually uses it as what it is: a vote arbiter,
and that's exactly what QDevices are designed for.


cheers,
Thomas