From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE5731FF16F for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 22:38:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A58B3853D; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 22:38:46 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <477dc5c4-5fc6-461c-b6b6-7731d9160c3c@suma-informatika.hr> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:37:51 +0300 References: <477dc5c4-5fc6-461c-b6b6-7731d9160c3c@suma-informatika.hr> To: =?utf-8?B?VG9uxI1pIFN0aXBpxI1ldmnEhw==?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Post: From: Stefan Radman via pve-user Precedence: list Cc: Stefan Radman , Proxmox VE user list X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Reply-To: Proxmox VE user list List-Help: Subject: Re: [PVE-User] replication bandwith limit not respected Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6920495424526783691==" Errors-To: pve-user-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-user" --===============6920495424526783691== Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: 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 7150AC30C7 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 22:38:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 544BC384CE for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 22:38:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from qs51p00im-qukt01071901.me.com (qs51p00im-qukt01071901.me.com [17.57.155.8]) (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 22:38:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=1a1hai; t=1726432686; bh=k2k+o8XVrkzyvt24OSoJjbWj16hAMgxCmNJekMmT7P4=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=H10T/r5n2FFqW/K7WY2K2+YbCJfFYS31Cb1zICVxN7WBcMNiODMJthpVpon9b4jdx 9hqyAjjznQWShk0J8bDsSB3e8D6GQ65O1ML/pxlCrM+2lsINl94jLxVYck9cvagFAD MDhInwvj+f9+8cvk7+CmtVE+BZrluaqCArTxCGCiO31bVCrC/gOTDsEn7qp4OmYzAO 9rmJaZCwXlIyIPJZUv8i1yd2gZsy4Lw+LV/NSs94S5geRpqlaLYU6nEiaJHi2tb4PS 3iZDlLt1nZr8nDsL4rQh1mb5Ks7rz4VhDB5d3vj6RoDncFpjm5KaohfY1kDb7yVIaT ijrXwV4NPZhxg== Received: from smtpclient.apple (qs51p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.57.155.28]) by qs51p00im-qukt01071901.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F7D1628057C; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 20:38:03 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\)) Subject: Re: [PVE-User] replication bandwith limit not respected From: Stefan Radman In-Reply-To: <477dc5c4-5fc6-461c-b6b6-7731d9160c3c@suma-informatika.hr> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:37:51 +0300 Cc: Proxmox VE user list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <477dc5c4-5fc6-461c-b6b6-7731d9160c3c@suma-informatika.hr> To: =?utf-8?B?VG9uxI1pIFN0aXBpxI1ldmnEhw==?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6) X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 1r_y4ljgpZ3gADvsD42VnXavThVnvDkm X-Proofpoint-GUID: 1r_y4ljgpZ3gADvsD42VnXavThVnvDkm X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-15_12,2024-09-13_02,2024-09-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2308100000 definitions=main-2409150158 X-Apple-Remote-Links: v=1;h=KCk=;charset=UTF-8 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.633 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 DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS 0.8 Email that uses ascii formatting dividers and possible spam tricks RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 0.001 Good reputation (+3) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.001 Mailspike good senders RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Hi Ton=C4=8Di > Now, two hosts are directly connected with optical patch cable = (peer-to-peer) .. 10G Then you should configure jumbo frames (e.g. MTU 9000) on those two = interfaces. Stefan > On Sep 9, 2024, at 10:40, Ton=C4=8Di Stipi=C4=8Devi=C4=87 = wrote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > this was just FYI .. I was just about to upgrade NICs to 10G , but = before I had to "rearrange" my VMs around my cluster and that is why I = lowered BW down to 80MBs >=20 > No, I did not measured/tested the speed, haven't gone that deep, and = this info was from network GUI graph ... it was saturated at 1Gbs >=20 > Anyway , I remember that custom replication bandwith adjustment was = always followed by corresponding GUI network graph presentation ... but = like you said , maybe this lowering was to small to reflect to the = network GUI graph >=20 > Pretty soon I'll test it again (with 10G cards) and write back the = results Now, two hosts are directly connected with optical patch = cable (peer-to-peer) .. 10G >=20 > ...srda=C4=8Dan pozdrav / best regards >=20 > Ton=C4=8Di Stipi=C4=8Devi=C4=87, dipl. ing. elektr. > direktor / manager >=20 > SUMA Informatika d.o.o., Badali=C4=87eva 27, OIB 93926415263 >=20 > Podr=C5=A1ka / Upravljanje IT sustavima za male i srednje tvrtke > Small & Medium Business IT Support / Management >=20 > mob: 091 1234003 > www.suma-informatika.hr >=20 > 06. 09. 2024. u 19:29, pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com pi=C5=A1e: >> Send pve-user mailing list submissions to >> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com >>=20 >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com >>=20 >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> pve-user-owner@lists.proxmox.com >>=20 >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of pve-user digest..." >>=20 >>=20 >> Today's Topics: >>=20 >> 1. replication bandwith limit not respected (Ton?i Stipi?evi?) >> 2. Re: replication bandwith limit not respected (Stefan Nehlsen) >> 3. Re: replication bandwith limit not respected (Stefan Radman) >> 4. Re: replication bandwith limit not respected (Stefan Radman) >> 5. Re: 8.2-1 ISO doesn't boot via UEFI on usb (Bryan Fields) >>=20 >>=20 >> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 15:00:57 +0200 >> From: Ton?i Stipi?evi? >> To: PVE User List >> Subject: [PVE-User] replication bandwith limit not respected >> Message-ID: = <3ee95219-6894-4ff6-a89c-9e4a8d81b74d@suma-informatika.hr> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8; format=3Dflowed >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> I'm running latest cluster (community support) >>=20 >> And today I've lowered replication speed down to 80MB/s? but = replcation >> still uses whole NIC bandwith (1G)? ... after few host restarts? = still >> the same >>=20 >> 2024-09-06 14:37:31 using a bandwidth limit of 80000000 bytes per = second >> for transferring 'data2:subvol-1007-disk-0' >>=20 >> Does somebody else experience that too ? >>=20 >>=20 >> Thank you in advance >>=20 >> BR >>=20 >> Ton?i >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user --===============6920495424526783691== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list pve-user@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user --===============6920495424526783691==--