>>We just need to be aware of that.
>>I guess normally a user does not assign IPs to several
>>bridges, so it is no problem by default.
Hi, I have worked on it this weekend, I'll resend an improved version today.
(Taking some ideas from cloudstack, with less rules lookup)
- Mail orig
Oh,sorry, I think I have make some patches in my git before.
I'll resend it today
- Mail original -
De: "Dietmar Maurer"
À: "Alexandre Derumier" , pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
Envoyé: Lundi 27 Janvier 2014 06:13:27
Objet: RE: [pve-devel] [PATCH] pve-sheepdog : bump to 0.8.0
I am unabl
I am unable to apply this patch:
Applying: pve-sheepdog : bump to 0.8.0
error: patch failed: Makefile:2
error: Makefile: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: debian/changelog:1
...
> -Original Message-
> From: pve-devel-boun...@pve.proxmox.com [mailto:pve-devel-
> boun...@pve.proxmo
- collie command is now 'dog'
- KB size is now k
- snapshot rollback need force -f flag, to avoid confirm prompt
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier
---
PVE/Storage/SheepdogPlugin.pm |6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/PVE/Storage/SheepdogPlugin.pm b/PVE/St
see commit
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
Please note that sheepdog 0.8 cluster format is not compatible with < 0.8
sheepdog format.
you need to backup your vdi before upgrade, and restore them after.
They are no upgrade path
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier
---
Makefile |2 +-
debian/changelog
see commit
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
Ok yes that would be great too!
Stefan
Excuse my typo sent from my mobile phone.
Am 26.01.2014 um 14:51 schrieb Dietmar Maurer :
>>> The disk window is simply too overloaded with all that IO throttle
>>> paramaters.
>>> They are totally pointless for 95% of our users.
>>
>> yes all but why no
> > The disk window is simply too overloaded with all that IO throttle
> > paramaters.
> > They are totally pointless for 95% of our users.
>
> yes all but why not keeping the 4 simple values like before and just have all
> settings in the seperate window later?
I guess the 'correct' way would b
