Yeaaa!!!
(Wait,,, did I say that out loud?)
Now figure out a way to backup your boot drive.
Edit: You're using a thumbdrive, right?
Using internal USB thumbdrive just for grub to point to the OS, OS is on SSD on SATA 5 (former ODD drive). Link above in the thread to the tutorial that I followed.
Next I will try to figure out a way to back up the entire config for DR, since it's on the SSD, only the grub data is replicated onto the thumbdrive (manually) just to be able to boot from it.
It's kind of a shame that your entire OS is not on the thumbdrive. If that was the case, thumbdrives are dirt simple to clone.
I read the "how-to" which appears to use a technique from back in the day, using floppy disks. What I don't understand is, if there's an external thumbdrive socket (and there appears to be two on the front bezel), why go to all the trouble of a split boot?
Also, if the entire OS is on the thumbdrive, the issue with boot drive names changing wouldn't be a problem. After running update-grub, grub would find itself on the thumbdrive by UUID. Thereafter, for boot purposes, device names wouldn't matter.
Also, as previously mentioned, setting up a ZFS pool by "ID" versus "path" avoids a similar kind of issue if a drive in the pool fails.
Just some thoughts.
It's kind of a shame that your entire OS is not on the thumbdrive. If that was the case, thumbdrives are dirt simple I used to have it
I used to have it like that, however thumbdrives seem to more of a risk with lifespan even using folder2ram, plus also considering testing SSD for L2ARC.
With folder2ram (the flashmemory plugin) I've been using a thumbdrive with one server for about 4 years. That's getting into a "hard drive like" life span.
And even if a thumbdrive's life is shorter, that's completely offset with backup. I'd rather have two cloned thumbdrives than a single more reliable device with no backup.
________________________________________
BTW: If you want to repurpose the SSD, one user I worked with got an exceptional performance boost using a small SSD as a ZIL drive.
It's a Proxmox kernel update. There shouldn't be any issue but there's no way to know for certain and it's worth noting that some users have had issues with recent ZFS updates.
Updates like this are another reason why I like booting with thumbdrives. Clone the working thumbdrive to the backup, do the update and evaluate. If it goes sour for some reason, fall back.
Using ZFS demands a bit of extra precaution where kernel and ZFS package updates are concerned. I wouldn't do updates with zfs*, libzfs*, pve*, libnvpair*, etc., (anything where the maintainer is the ZFS project.) unless your boot drive is fully backed up, and tested.
It's a Proxmox kernel update. There shouldn't be any issue but there's no way to know for certain and it's worth noting that some users have had issues with recent ZFS updates.
Updates like this are another reason why I like booting with thumbdrives. Clone the working thumbdrive to the backup, do the update and evaluate. If it goes sour for some reason, fall back.
Using ZFS demands a bit of extra precaution where kernel and ZFS package updates are concerned. I wouldn't do updates with zfs*, libzfs*, pve*, libnvpair*, etc., (anything where the maintainer is the ZFS project.) unless your boot drive is not fully backed up, and tested.
Ok, but why 2 versions each - 2 * pve-headers and 2 * pve-kernel?
Ok, but why 2 versions each - 2 * pve-headers and 2 * pve-kernel?
I'm not sure so I can't answer that. The OMV5 box I have, that's set up for ZFS, has custom pinnings. But, it may have something to do with the number of Proxmox kernels resident, but not necessarily installed.
Maybe someone else can chime in here, to answer this.
Maybe someone else can chime in here, to answer this.
That 6.3 appeared on my listing twice over the last few weeks, I've just installed them but my server is set to run 103 but it doesn't list 6.3 under omv-extras kernel
Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!
