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 4E378944A5 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:20:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DEE81CE47 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:20:06 +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 ; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:20:05 +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); Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:19:46 +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 5E13C20307B8C for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:19:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:19:48 +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> <1e2cc9a1-5673-33de-fff6-cf8d601d3806@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: 5E13C20307B8C X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.229 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: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:20:06 -0000 On 1/11/23 10:39, Eneko Lacunza via pve-user wrote: > You should change your public_network to 192.168.255.0/24 . So the public_network is the pve communication network? I can edit directly the /etc/pve/ceph.conf and then corosync should change the ceph.conf on the others nodes? > > Then, one by one, remove a monitor and recreate it, check values for > new monitor are on correct network. > > Finally restart one by one OSD services and check their listening IPs > (they listen on public and private Ceph networks). the osd services in each proxmox node? Piviul