Latest announcements for Proxmox.

  • Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    For the dependency issues I used systemd in my homelab. I have not tested HA as I only have gigabit and limited hardware so performance would take a hit.

    The 2 biggest issues I’ve noticed with Proxmox is:

    1. When the cluster gets out of Quotem it is really hard to reestablish consensus.

    2. Proxmox is a normal Linux system which sounds good but updating individual packages with apt can be problematic and doing a version upgrade is a hassle. It would be better if it was immutable so that you could upgrade and downgrade easily. Ideally it would be automated so that nodes could automatically upgraded and then test for stability. If an upgrade fails it should roll it back.

    • surfrock66@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Those are all fair, also the entire open-vswitch setup is very clunky. I always avoid the UI and just edit /etc/network/interfaces directly, especially for vlan networks. I dislike that it wants 3 nodes but I understand, still 2 nodes in the homelab is pretty reasonable. I wish in general the HA was more configurable, robust, and intuitive.

      • Possibly linux
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        For HA you are always going to need 3 nodes at least. Most HA systems need 5 or more

        • surfrock66@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Does that need to be true though? For like true “counting in how many 9’s” HA of course. But there’s nothing technically preventing high availability in 2 nodes; if the storage is shared and there’s a process to keep the memory in sync it should be possible with 2 nodes have some degree of high availability, even if it’s with big warnings.

          • Possibly linux
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The problem with 2 nodes is there is no way to identity which node has the issue. From the hosts perspective all it “knows” is that the other node isn’t reachable. Technically it could assume that it is the functional one but there is also the possibility that both machines assume they are the working one and then spin up the same VM.

            You can cluster two nodes but as soon as one node can’t reach the other everything freezes to prevent loss of consensus.

            The reason I suggest 5 nodes is because 3 only gives the possibility for one node to fail. If one fails and then the remaining 2 can’t sort out what is happening the cluster freezes to prevent loss of consensus. Also having 5 machines means you have more flexibility.

            I also want to point out that you need fast networking for HA but I’m sure you already know that.