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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58CF077271 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:57:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 42A1A2F32C for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:56:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-xe36.google.com (mail-vs1-xe36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (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 7BE162F316 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:56:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe36.google.com with SMTP id r25so11056127vsk.2 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 03:56:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DT96bazav0RQMzvwe8mO/9Vf4kbPcc1ycZrV1X0RBIg=; b=AoNRbcSN4za/g7RZkf4Tn+ZhxMnkL/BaFTefE0lVMFxecBVULrvptteE807lWhFDq6 zF8yR5VEf4woIElK1IGF2Hr7v9NdzgZW7xGgIi97XJrvg8NroxMol0oYI1/5T29NzXRU wmeqfE905guPi4aW044j1iZ8RQu+ZyNRvnKA2olDe841FegJJexAJyrW1qfUG1HZeOdo prtH8wXoK17qmpZbPQqPKXoCN3HTvTYj9qVZaTtsa3H9goT7g5FIaxhlsgQ7axoe4Ity 320BxUevALNU//IsAHJxbOeU3BpiKopBTmdiOgQjR4KJPp2hQbmPpos5GY2KSX9XDKUw YXHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=DT96bazav0RQMzvwe8mO/9Vf4kbPcc1ycZrV1X0RBIg=; b=psrLZCVI+1xGzFLK933gnA2Duzqj/Ac9HPD+xF1Ntk3TG0J3QHsUrNpPEqvCYOTlWu /LTVEOINv1MLQV32ALiF4s3afmo1wcSedTvDWrRyL5PCYP2hhUwLpl2VT3jlzJACGFyV gjhOU6qdldZlq0bfjV/dZULucUSBFCc46RIK4xKKaQ3nRPorMnXuTZudygoad2JPXzT4 2Cw4iNsoMkUr/GBdCqAhfYiJKsoDFSTRXBF7RVMq0cBWO6qapGJ76QZrbd4LqdULsMDd b5Ez5Ee/xx7q3tYZZckic2fIi1C2QJlSki+WXycJYqZB+IwRmgi5uiUaL0pidPwJjNQz hX5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rNrfKFZGB+8/KqMVb5r0Blkbx+2tZbWG0x82hhrWqqHfaY//e iTVAUXL7fK1OGnCbaaDtplLjwyxE0BTA3btjXRCwwEVMkw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfvSd7zXXHGe5GCNei1jz8PgaizJcJkVVi2xjZvF/qDJmq6lVzW/7bHfozjdC45KGHrpdEq1rGu5u4x4UJYd8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d314:: with SMTP id a20mr25233780vsj.58.1626778604014; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 03:56:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8242aca652161e867154eba4f9b5a65fa2ee9298.camel@odiso.com> <10e5b75a-0e2b-ed80-f188-38a9be4a5a14@tuxis.nl> In-Reply-To: From: Alex K Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:56:33 +0300 Message-ID: To: Proxmox VE user list X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.051 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 FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message POISEN_SPAM_PILL_4 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox questions/features 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, 20 Jul 2021 10:57:23 -0000 Anyone has any feedback to share regarding the support of multiple glusterfs server nodes? Thanx On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:44 PM Alex K wrote: > Resending as it seems screenshots are not accepted. > > Regarding the *backup-volfile-servers* option when attaching gluster > volumes, I tried to configure it from UI (DC -> Storage -> Add) as below > though it seems it is not supported. > I am getting the error: > > Parameter verification failed. (400) > *server2*: invalid format - value does not look like a valid server name > or IP address > > How can one define more than one backup server as below? > > backup-volfile-servers=3Dnode1,node2 > > This is useful when having a 3 replica or more gluster server setup. > > Thanx, > Alex > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:01 AM alexandre derumier > wrote: > >> Le vendredi 09 juillet 2021 =C3=A0 10:16 +0200, Mark Schouten a =C3=A9cr= it : >> > Maybe easier to use the metric-server-service for that? >> >> it's more than we don't have some values currently, like vm real host >> cpu usage. (including vhost-net process for example), >> >> or real host memory usage (for windows, when ballonning is enabled, we >> don't see the zero filled memory by windows, so reserved on the host). >> >> My patches to get values from cgroups are already applied, >> but they are not yet exposed in pvestatd. >> >> >> I would like also to improve pve-ha-manager vm migration based on the >> hosts load too. >> >> >> I just need time to rework on this ^_^ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pve-user mailing list >> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >> >