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