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 D5C8E60872 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:15:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CEB9A11A74 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:15:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (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 C038911A65 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:15:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id t9so2426479edq.8 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:15:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gGSh6I1jVBlMIzfBH0QWK/ZeWxS7XzIEyLimWIYqkCo=; b=Cuic7aHikFuh5sqxv6AEF1WEYLAnPffJ1/FdeW9q/NvBRJgHb1FlJU9VYtYr8dBNG8 iswvmYWznYd1yrQqXyl1XeXWk9GTl/UfE0w6w9MR6vi27EsMugcNDhBQiN1swG+DJ3+j yiT2AphpVuwzYhU4YxCEMoN/83MTJ0LhNkvn+LIWERNKSuIj3VnLBdBMuVyJkHdeC4Ho Tj1yAGSHsUFhrfLlCt/3xU1Zx5t2DVK6Y1koG3vePmNYJ72wjYHcA1JgZ4PnvyHtv7RY koskEMxbeKBzTcNU82j+CAPX19xQ515N6hSj+80OZ/QlOqcT+cxOFWNOREzyGRpcCQkX QcOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gGSh6I1jVBlMIzfBH0QWK/ZeWxS7XzIEyLimWIYqkCo=; b=WWvU7E82uaYDh9SGBkG8peQu0SUnvynVufXZX3Hn8a/FluWX2A1biL3U8GEOtUSvh7 /kXmBLM3K0LtRCu47u+K/bqXdNm8lXqofHAcWkDr2PGzhK8Enfu+mn9520ojex2kiB4m ZJnWGXMPtnP7SeW0UarJLMUFGM2OzyhjzMaIJSyv6CKTxCO44uQ8+lNgEdXfuRDLUlQr 3pDPtpCh2lgFAGi45+ExpMlsK8NFP+MiCfIKOz2xSrGa5PU9M/dg/4573GA/WvGRKj83 Gh27+kK0146twwNeLbENHWuaibIG7wbv6I4K9BZ40Ub3xXIVh+1hZs414I1PPaban1Qk tHrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MU7Wq/vQNUIcRQehYuIa7PM3x2kqPFZbGL4fbikw5Z4rC9GX1 4VnCf1zRC2kZhZXFidqLTj74unW0790= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2w+rvQYtdRam0M1qAl6UdT9jX+N1/XqmN70U3qoPr+SUBgj6/ccMNLkyhiASQCI1wQvB9Gw== X-Received: by 2002:a50:c30d:: with SMTP id a13mr2710679edb.89.1606400101281; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2a02:8070:a3c0:1400:cae2:65ff:fe2e:f680? ([2a02:8070:a3c0:1400:cae2:65ff:fe2e:f680]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id bd21sm3268769edb.79.2020.11.26.06.15.00 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:15:00 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <4545c7f5-9b50-2f0a-952a-cc532ad01b13@gmail.com> <15f5893d-83cf-ee8c-11ff-0a67e376dc41@gmail.com> From: Uwe Sauter Message-ID: <9c0ceb9e-ff96-b12f-a4ed-1e1ac250fbb6@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:15:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <15f5893d-83cf-ee8c-11ff-0a67e376dc41@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: de-DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.001 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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 FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Caution: ceph-mon service does not start after today's updates 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: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:15:08 -0000 Am 26.11.20 um 15:10 schrieb Lindsay Mathieson: > On 26/11/2020 10:18 pm, Uwe Sauter wrote: >> this is a warning for all that are eager to apply today's updates. >> In my case the ceph-mon@ service did not start after a reboot which caused a hanging Ceph once the second monitoring service >> went offline. > > I ran into that, also the node failed to rejoin the cluster quorum. syslog had errors relating to the pem-ssl key. > > Manually start the pve cluster service and a 2nd reboot solved both issues. > Yes, rebooting might help, but not reliably. I had nodes that needed several reboots until pvestatd did not fail. I also had failed ceph-mgr@ services (with Nautilus). My current suspicion is that my network takes too long to become available. Regards, Uwe