Re: [PVE-User] Backup/timeout issues PVE 6.4

["Сергей Цаболов" <tsabolov@t8.ru>]

The Synology path mount over NFS is shared on 3 nodes ?

19.04.2022 17:46, Eneko Lacunza via pve-user пишет:
> _______________________________________________
> pve-user mailing list
> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
С уважением
Сергей Цаболов
Системный Администратор ООО "Т8"
Тел.: +74992716161
Моб: +79850334875
logo_T8rus <https://t8.ru>

tsabolov@t8.ru
ООО «Т8», 107076, г. Москва
Краснобогатырская ул., д. 44, стр.1
www.t8.ru <https://t8.ru/>
From elacunza@binovo.es  Tue Apr 19 16:54:47 2022
Return-Path: <elacunza@binovo.es>
X-Original-To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
Delivered-To: pve-user@lists.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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4921DB7C
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:54:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D254D23D0
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:54:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 028C423BB
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:54:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id
 n126-20020a1c2784000000b0038e8af3e788so1667729wmn.1
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=binovo.es; s=google;
 h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to
 :references:from:in-reply-to;
 bh=fJwBZDJRF4pU3BjompcDXTMb/V+4PV3Z8Suqybe7nVA=;
 b=rv1L5iKiH3B4gXA/SDdLYkNChyJ88HngqmgK/2iEO/pLO51z6fbExd3dSqvZt1QRQn
 DDKDE/dwi5LLV7A1rplXl75V8v4MJO4Miw6EOuBgW3crBDR5Rrkeft1q4afju9c/W0gv
 jKA9O8CVbAnnQdttXYVY20nCzdCPrCS6W3pYthGe2P8bqVWy/sRdILRsBzzyToaA41ps
 fmcMRfG53m19+X7ofuUXNXeFdhuBR06BKfEybgjGbuYDX9wt8AJvXSWiAsdY2x07K++2
 FuRMXNE3v1gz5uSO232UhA4Osy5yrTlAOoUdGPP4SDNOK2eo1j2rR3Ty78480n/GcwwQ
 suqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject
 :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to;
 bh=fJwBZDJRF4pU3BjompcDXTMb/V+4PV3Z8Suqybe7nVA=;
 b=JrF8hbC/9U3VMgjgdvh4CXZyLS/sAKCIgyOV+V5a62aWLz4tRe4ONuhTLIoUwGIwXz
 GfUvFtIeR/LRfb0GKrBVL1VCdOKR0rLH4YfYeWZ1SeUKWaMLtFnQMQNiboX/S+6CCsYO
 HGpFBeGZjye75KpxQ6jzBHjra0ZzepUJrlOTsMLepM5ELWjz64T2X72H63qZC5NP6SZx
 H5ouTDYz3fh7tt0VGhxzbgyRIUmJ1psPU9OqBNvsri5D41MY7y/AdfTi+L1cBbzKmVCS
 2FkvQtMWGL9nw3nnLhf1qhNa34aCUfmafg4piO37RVeMEHAvUlIMYHtdTmH0JD/Sq+Sb
 Z7hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533q1tv5N6cdO85GRUbUD42A3aB4i6cXxOKQHEeZQE+lEKqoBzhl
 cCxPTahQOCU3DjQyl75JOGadlpCxg3rfTw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTzZmpVKBAaohCIhuEAOHM3RSr0RWTiWSVMGXiJjYqhAzRoNB7YmtpV+1cXXQHwTlLk9o8Yg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a185:0:b0:392:206d:209d with SMTP id
 k127-20020a1ca185000000b00392206d209dmr16153594wme.168.1650380079405; 
 Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.29.37.190] (249.red-213-96-132.staticip.rima-tde.net.
 [213.96.132.249]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
 k65-20020a1ca144000000b003929a64ab63sm4997378wme.38.2022.04.19.07.54.38
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0fb91be8-9308-f50e-896a-d1ee950d684d@binovo.es>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:54:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PVE-User] PowerEdge R440 & watchdog timer
Content-Language: es-CO
To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
References: <d22938b2-3656-3e7f-b2b7-845f2aaf6056@t8.ru>
 <mailman.275.1650032197.377.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
 <mailman.276.1650032585.377.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
 <746cb313-1ee4-8481-6904-a261634202e9@t8.ru>
 <20220415165642.0e5b20cb@sleipner.datanom.net>
 <cd411741-224a-3b0e-7aa0-7415146bfcd9@t8.ru>
 <mailman.279.1650038462.377.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
 <mailman.280.1650038722.377.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
From: Eneko Lacunza <elacunza@binovo.es>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.280.1650038722.377.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.738 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 HTML_MESSAGE            0.001 HTML included in message
 NICE_REPLY_A           -3.247 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 no trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:54:47 -0000

Hi,

El 15/4/22 a las 18:04, Michael Rasmussen via pve-user escribió:
>> For the last 10 years I have been using Proxmox I have not have a lost
>> connection to a server for over 1 sec without it being intentionally
>> but if your circumstances is another usecase I would go for stackable
>> switches I have a port for either switch connected to my servers and
>> UPS control for all my servers.
>>
>> Loosing connection to a server for more than 1 sec can only mean
>> hardware failure or loss of power.
>>
> Forgot to mention that all my infrastructure and hardware is UPS
> controlled so only planned downtime has been when replacing UPS/battery
> in UPS (3 times) and one time when there was a longer period without
> power from the power grid (1 time and not planned ;-).
>
Unfortunately, starting with PVE 7.x we're seeing cluster issues (nodes 
going out of quorum only to rejoin instantly) "too often".

This is why we create multiple links for corosync after upgrading 
clusters to v7, so that one of these point-in-time issues with network 
doesn't reboot a node.

So far it has worked well. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find a 
common pattern/cause in several clusters we see the issue.

Cheers

Eneko Lacunza
Zuzendari teknikoa | Director técnico
Binovo IT Human Project

Tel. +34 943 569 206 |https://www.binovo.es
Astigarragako Bidea, 2 - 2º izda. Oficina 10-11, 20180 Oiartzun

https://www.youtube.com/user/CANALBINOVO
https://www.linkedin.com/company/37269706/