From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 1E7727469D for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0CD4822FED for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.xpecto.de (mx1.xpecto.de [212.102.161.249]) (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 E075222FE2 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (mx1.xpecto.de [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.xpecto.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7D7320003 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xpecto.com; s=20170902; t=1625823841; bh=e1S19NBs27ZaCsxqzk7v6ApcUw6lNLgbDbqkzSTjmeQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=VfsV4sw/o2HVD3FPprvCwXtkBskzM+8yitGv6dV3vDQ9R6svYNdRPDcTLRv+Rf55a vgVgQfzVniOKgMXqFHPZ0+L3dSMtmfxvWLeimb9pTTMgSHCF4rQVc58Y14kNn4TbLh 2UOk+g9uf9Nhqf/lM3gb9OsoGuMQaORD16Ve0vwMKRWtoTBR7QpKBcTn/u7epOtpZp GdG0oVC8Ugn7beiPlxZGGzm5NJzIszFlZJuqLP0N6N95LJ3ui9bgl0tq0JbD78FgaU XLz05xbWmomKF+HweJO76a6KdwHAP9vWr6IvRoEyBz/G8EmI62NQb7V5rRbvYXOZfo 624B+VluO8jhg== X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx1.xpecto.de X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -50.59 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.59 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[BAYES_00=-1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, LOCAL_RCVD=-50, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mx1.xpecto.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.xpecto.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSNSBP_nxZxV for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from postman.xpecto.de (postman.xpecto.local [10.208.30.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.xpecto.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from postman.xpecto.local (10.208.30.11) by postman.xpecto.local (10.208.30.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.10; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:00 +0200 Received: from postman.xpecto.local ([fe80::f965:5e8e:bcd:74f3]) by postman.xpecto.local ([fe80::f965:5e8e:bcd:74f3%4]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.010; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:44:00 +0200 From: Christoph Weber To: "pve-user@lists.proxmox.com" Thread-Topic: Question about best way to replace boot disk of a proxmox + ceph node Thread-Index: Add0pu6EY7DyN0RFSvu3ZLQdhKFuvA== Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:43:59 +0000 Message-ID: <17e68a3840a9442d8f0e845493964dca@xpecto.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.2.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.237 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (permerror) URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [xpecto.com] Subject: [PVE-User] Question about best way to replace boot disk of a proxmox + ceph node X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 09:44:39 -0000 Hi everybody, we have one proxmox node (node3) with ceph where the boot disk is beginnin= g to fail (In fact we already experienced some defective system libraries w= hich led to kernel panic on boot until we were able to determine the affect= ed library to be replaced with a working copy). We see two possible ways: a) clone the partially defective disk to a new ssd which would keep all con= figuration, but might also copy defective files b) install a fresh copy of proxmox 6.4 with two subvariants: b1) only configure the same network interface address and name and join = the proxmox and ceph cluster when the node has booted up b2) copy network configuration and /etc/ceph folder from defective node = to the new disk before booting - and then join the proxmox cluster. In this= case the question is, if there are more files to be copied like /etc/coros= ync? Method b1 seems to be the most safe to me, but I'm not 100% sure if it migh= t be a problem when we cluster join the node3 again with the same name and = ip address as it was.=20 Would we have to prepare ceph or proxmox for this? Remove the node3 from ce= ph and/or proxmox before we re-join it? Additional Bonus: We have a fresh node (node6) without disks set up - we mi= ght move the ceph disks from the node3 to the new node6 before we replace t= he bootdisk.=20 Any opinions/suggestions would be greatly appreciated --=20 Christoph