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 9F06B9411F for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:24:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 759916EA6 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:24:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.iper.net (mail.iper.net [94.236.32.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:24:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from servercsa.csaricerche.com (UnknownHost [82.134.223.122]) by mail.iper.net with SMTP (version=TLS\Tls12 cipher=Aes256 bits=256); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.70.10] (psala-lx2.csaricerche.com [192.168.70.10]) (Authenticated sender: psala) by servercsa.csaricerche.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D80912069215B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1e2cc9a1-5673-33de-fff6-cf8d601d3806@riminilug.it> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Content-Language: it, en-US To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <7606f44a-279c-c797-8206-95ea281245b1@riminilug.it> From: Piviul In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 20.00]; IP_WHITELIST(0.00)[192.168.70.10] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=multimap; Matched map: IP_WHITELIST X-Rspamd-Server: servercsa.csaricerche.com X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D80912069215B X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.344 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_NONE 0.25 DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on the message and the domain has no DMARC policy 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_SOFTFAIL 0.665 SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) Subject: Re: [PVE-User] ceph 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: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 07:24:40 -0000 On 1/9/23 12:54, Eneko Lacunza via pve-user wrote: > If all Ceph services/clients are on those Proxmox nodes, yes, that > should work. yes all services/clients are on proxmox nodes... > Also check that there are no old monitor IPs on ceph config when > you're done (/etc/pve/ceph.conf) ok, I'll do. I have a problem, when I add a monitor (Ceph->monitor->Create) I can choose the monitor to add only from a combo box having the names of the proxmox nodes. But the proxmox node name is resolved with a IP of the LAN hosts not of the LAN CEPH dedicated... Can I ask you if in your configuration the ceph monitors and mds are referring to the IPs of the CEPH dedicated LAN or even in your configuration the monitors and mds are referring to the IPs of the LAN hosts? Piviul