[PVE-User] Is it wise to upgrade to 2.1 from 1.8?

[Jeremy Davis]

Not sure about your issue with install, I used the upgrade script and
it all went well (I had a couple of issues that were easily resolved).
For the record, I had issue with clock drift in Win guests (even in
PVE 1.8/1.9) until I set the PVE host as the NTP server.

Hope you get your issue sorted.
Cheers,Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce B" 
To:"proxmoxve (pve-user at pve.proxmox.com)" 
Cc:
Sent:Wed, 2 May 2012 23:20:44 -0400
Subject:Re: [PVE-User] Is it wise to upgrade to 2.1 from 1.8?

	Thanks for the input Brian. Very detailed and I am going to make the
move since I will be clustering. 
 I just tried to install the 2.1 version and I am getting: UNABLE TO
CREATE VOLUME /USR/BIN/PROXINSTALL AT LINE 602 
 I am trying to install using USB. Searching Google turns nothing for
this error. 
 I do have fake raid but I am going to turn that off and use the
second hard drive as a nightly backup since fake raid is not supported
by Proxmox "petty though". Other than that, I see nothing wrong as to
why it shouldn't proceed with install. 
 Any inputs? 
 Thanks  
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Hart, Brian R.  wrote:
    Bruce, 
 Overall, I think it has been well worth the upgrade for me.  I think
it depends though on your configuration.  The revamped GUI took a
little getting used to but now that I'm used to it I absolutely love
it.  I think whether or not it is worth it would depend heavily on
how you use it.  If you're using this on stand-alone systems, with no
clustering, and you're the only person that would ever need to login
to the interface then 1.9 is probably fine and would save you the
troubles and worries of upgrading.  However, if you do ANY clustering
at all, or if you share management of your VMs with other users, or
even if you have a large number of VMs (the new interface is better
for scalability) then I think you should seriously consider upgrading

 Regardless of whether or not you go to 2.x, I would at LEAST get your
updated to 1.9.  When I upgraded to 2.0, I had a 3 node cluster with
about 30 virtual machines running in 1.9.  It took a bit of effort
and probably about 3-4 days with a fair amount of time put in but in
the end I am completely happy with it and would not look back.  Also,
I think if you attempt the "in-place upgrade" to 2.0 you have to be
running 1.9.  I would read over the wiki page for that carefully and
be sure you know what you need to do before attempting – and make
sure to have backups of all your VMs. 
 Also, I believe the time drift issue has been resolved with the 2.1
update released recently.   
 Hope this helps and good luck!   
   -- Brian Hart     
   From: Bruce B 
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 19:12:36 -0400
To: "proxmoxve (pve-user at pve.proxmox.com [3])" 
Subject: [PVE-User] Is it wise to upgrade to 2.1 from 1.8?

 Hi everyone, 
 I have been running Proxmox 1.8 for quite a while now and am very
happy with it. I run both Windows and Linux VMs and KVMs. I have just
had a roadmap read of 2.0 and 2.1 and I see that there is some Windows
"time drift" issue and that the GUI all revamped. 
 I am a bit scared to upgrade. I have other stand by servers which I
can transfer my VMs and KVMs to one by one but is it worth my time and
the hassel? Are there any serious bugs that I should give thoughts to
before migrating tot he new platform? 
 At the same time I am super excited to see this new platform. I
appreciate your feedback. 
 Best,  _______________________________________________ pve-user
mailing list pve-user at pve.proxmox.com [5]
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user [6]    
 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:brianhart at ou.edu
[2] mailto:bruceb444 at gmail.com
[3] mailto:pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
[4] mailto:pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
[5] mailto:pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
[6] http://pveproxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/attachments/20120503/0830712e/attachment.htm>