From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2286D1FF0AA for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:40:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5C72621653; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:40:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Marco Gaiarin Subject: Re: Two nodes asymmetrical cluster, backup, stall of one node. Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:16:48 +0200 Organization: Il gaio usa sempre TIN per le liste, fallo anche tu!!! Message-ID: References: <20260901105522.Horde.vgrn9fzQ416tczxJi0dVq0Y@drive.antreich.com> X-Trace: eraldo.lilliput.linux.it 1792531285 1732631 192.168.1.45 (20 Oct 2026 21:21:25 GMT) To: Marco Gaiarin X-Mailer: tin/2.6.4-20240224 ("Banff") (Linux/7.0.0-38-generic (x86_64)) X-Gateway-System: SmartGate 1.4.5 In-Reply-To: ; from SmartGate on Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 23:36:01PM +0200 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.452 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: DAQX2PW6MZRVQK3W2RWGSGBCE2WY4INL X-Message-ID-Hash: DAQX2PW6MZRVQK3W2RWGSGBCE2WY4INL X-MailFrom: gaio@lilliput.linux.it X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mandi! Marco Gaiarin In chel di` si favelave... > I come back with more info. Thanks. OK, i come back on this. Practically, one of the VMs have some unusual disk space occupation, so it generate 80GB VM Backup. One of this backup failed, and the backup spool data filled up the disk: i've not noticed that because normally we have 5-10GB backups max, so having 60GB of freespace does not harm me. Initially the backups failure was not for 'disk full' errors (probably, a transient error...), so i've not looked at them anymore. Sorry to all. Thanks. --