From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B28C21FF0AF for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:53:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5891C2153E; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:53:18 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:53:14 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager/installer/proxmox v2 00/16] auto-installer: add installed target systems as new remotes From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Christoph Heiss" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260826110504.1339934-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260826110504.1339934-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1789048384995 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.636 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: F2BKMOACRNEBX7OGLEBTPDTO57V6PRXP X-Message-ID-Hash: F2BKMOACRNEBX7OGLEBTPDTO57V6PRXP X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: After struggling a little bit to get the repositories to build and an ISO patched, the automatic installing worked perfectly. I created a new "Prepared Answer" on my PDM instance and then pasted the correct URL, fingerprint, ... to the ISO. Having ticked the "Provision As New Remote" checkbox in the Authentication tab, after successful installati= on, the machine was added to PDM as a remote. Aside from having the patches applied to the installer and PDM, I have also tried the following combinations: * only patching the installer * only patching PDM and ticking the checkbox in the answer sheet * as a baseline, I also tested the auto installer without patches * since PBS is also supported, I also tested that All of the cases mentioned above worked well, although there are two small things that I noticed. Since my knowledge in this domain is limited, I'm no= t 100% sure if this is the correct place to mention them, but I will do so anyway: 1. Faulty Datacenter Manager URL During my first autoinstall, I had the URL to the PDM instance set with a incorrect domain name, which led to this error during the installation: > ... > Unmounting "/target/dev" > Unmounting "/target/proc" > Unmounting "/target/run" > Unmounting "/target/sys" > Chroot cleanup done. You can now reboot or leave the shell. > > Error occurred during post-installation-webhook: > io: falied to look up address information: Name or service not known > Post-installation hook failed (exit-code 0) - see above for errors. > > Installation aborted - unable to continue (type exit or CTRL-D to reb= oot) Reading these last lines, I was not sure if the installation had succeeded = or not. A restart did confirm that everything was alright and that the installation did succeed. Maybe the logs can be reworked to not send such mixed signals. 2. Installation Status in PDM During one of the initial installations, I had misconfigured the network device filters and thus the installation failed. Opening the PDM webui and going under "Automated Installations", these failed attempts still retain t= he "In Progress" status. I don't think this is a problem, but just a thing I noticed. I'm also aware that adding a "Failed" state, as well as the machinery to set such a state = on error, could be a bigger change, and thus better suited to a separate serie= s. --- That said, both of these are not blockers, so consider this: Reviewed-by: Thomas Ellmenreich Tested-by: Thomas Ellmenreich