Selfhosted

61625 readers

214 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Virtualizing my router - any experience to share? Pros/cons? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by GameGod@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm thinking about moving my router to be a VM on a server in my homelab. Anyone have any experience to share about this? Any downsides I haven't thought of?

Backstory: My current pfSense router box can't keep up with my new fibre speeds because PPPOE is single threaded on FreeBSD, so as a test, I installed OpenWRT in a VM on a server I have and using VLANs, got it to act as a router for my network. I was able to validate it can keep up with the fibre speeds, so all good there. While shopping for a new routerboard, I was thinking about minimizing power and heat, and it made me realize that maybe I should just keep the router virtualized permanently. The physical server is already on a big UPS, so I could keep it running in a power outage.

I only have 1 gbps fibre and a single GbE port on the server, but I could buff the LAN ports if needed.

Any downsides to keeping your router as a VM over having dedicated hardware for it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Oisteink@feddit.nl 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So 3+ hosts for clustering or 2 hosts and an qdevice to fake it

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yes. You can just get by with 2 devices but you need to set expected_votes=1 in the cluster config somewhere, don't recall where, and I've encountered issues with stability with that solution, seems like it'll get undone though I haven't used it for years to say if that's still the case.

The q-device will work on anything Linux that's available when the second node is down. Not having the tie-breaker isn't the end of the world, it just means you have to go in after you bring up the second node and start some things manually, and if you're replacing nodes in a 2-node cluster, it's much nicer to have the q-device.

[–] Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Without a 3rd they can get confused if they loose contact but both nodes are up. Like both are in charge as one vote is enough

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That's it. Been a long time since I had to use that and I found it had it's issues so I moved to the qdevice without a third node.

[–] PainInTheAES@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, it's /etc/pve/corosync.conf you can set quorum votes to 2 for a device. But it's easy to get the file overwritten. Link

Or you can use pvecm expected 1 on both hosts or pvecm --votes 2 on one device.