> Will this fix make it in to the packages for 3.0 rc2 ?
yes
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
Great!
Will this fix make it in to the packages for 3.0 rc2 ?
Regards,
Andrew
On 5/7/2013 10:21 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
Thanks for the hint:
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-qemu-kvm.git;a=commit;h=54619c4adf9014093ef09d0f28fd40e88f56a55a
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Pri
> Could you share the test conditions?
> I tried to reproduce on:
> 1) Hardware RAID 0+1 with write cache and BBU + ext3, "dbench -t 60 50"
> resulted with the "deadline" just a bit faster
> 2) HDD 500GB (Desktop system) + ext4, "dbench -t 60 50" resulted with almost
> no difference between CFQ and
>> If I remember, some openvz features works only with cfq ? (ionice, openvz IO
>> priorities)
>> see:
>> http://pve.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2012-March/002488.html
>
> Yes, but we measure incredible bad performance with cfq. We get fsync
> rates of 250 instead of 3000 on ext4 (factor 12!).
> + qmtemplate: [ 'VM', gettext('Convert To Template') ],
What is the correct way to write it:
Convert To Template
Convert to Template
Convert to template
Any ideas?
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-b
applied, thanks!
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier
---
www/manager/Utils.js |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/www/manager/Utils.js b/www/manager/Utils.js
index 1c6ca23..69aa0d7 100644
--- a/www/manager/Utils.js
+++ b/www/manager/Utils.js
@@ -440,6 +440,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.Utils', { statics:
qmtemplate task : format task description
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
> What about the Live Storage Migration ? Is it planned in this release ?
no, maybe with 3.1
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
> Oh OK. Didn't know that it is such an immense task.
> But generally i think
> proxmox need in the future a shared FS to share such stuff which is not
> totally
> based on memory. Maybe there is a very small but maybe slow easy to reploy
> replicated FS.
IMHO, a shared, replicated file system
Hi all,
we just released Proxmox VE 3.0 RC1 (release candidate). It's based on the
great Debian 7.0 release (Wheezy) and introduces a great new feature set:
http://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/VM_Templates_and_Clones
Under the hood, many improvements and optimizations are done, most important is
the r
Am 08.05.2013 09:19, schrieb Dietmar Maurer:
>> So you mean a second filesystem for logs equal to the existing one is too
>> much
>> overhead?
>
> I simply do not have the time to implement such things. I guess this is
> several weeks
> of development/testing.
>
Oh OK. Didn't know that it is su
> So you mean a second filesystem for logs equal to the existing one is too much
> overhead?
I simply do not have the time to implement such things. I guess this is several
weeks
of development/testing.
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.
Am 08.05.2013 09:10, schrieb Dietmar Maurer:
>>> BTW, the current cluster file system is completely kept in RAM. So it
>>> is not possible to store large amount of data there!
>>
>> But it is permanent isn't it?
>
> Sure, we also store it into an sqlite DB.
So you mean a second filesystem for log
> > BTW, the current cluster file system is completely kept in RAM. So it
> > is not possible to store large amount of data there!
>
> But it is permanent isn't it?
Sure, we also store it into an sqlite DB.
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.prox
15 matches
Mail list logo
