Selfhosted

42074 readers

497 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

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

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by GameGod@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

38 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

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days 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.

[–] PainInTheAES@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days 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.

[–] Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days 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 4 days 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.