From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5240861D21
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:15:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4936622D41
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:15:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 72A0C22D37
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3AF9F43143;
 Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>, Roland
 <devzero@web.de>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>, martin@proxmox.com
References: <c84ac772-d577-27fd-710c-293d8a4baffe@proxmox.com>
 <29674be5-026b-0a89-29ba-3951a99048b1@web.de>
 <1935605059.460.1594382980972@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <147b5bcd-ca6d-dd89-7389-d9a0e5de4726@web.de>
 <89ad8a6e-4d67-4782-9c0c-e403f7bde090@proxmox.com>
 <883f66d0-cee9-fa5b-e914-fb8cc63bb5f9@web.de>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <8433ecf2-0a9e-6a2f-2c5e-08a2d6967190@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:15:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <883f66d0-cee9-fa5b-e914-fb8cc63bb5f9@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [proxmox.com, veeam.com, vmware.com]
Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Backup Server (beta)
X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:15:05 -0000

On 10.07.20 16:06, Roland wrote:
> i think there may be a misunderstanding here or i was not clear enough
> to express what i meant.
>=20
> i guess in terms of backup storage,=C2=A0 pbs is doing similar to what
> borgbackup does - so indeed that IS i/o and storage effient , but that
> refers to the backup target side.
>=20
> but what about the backup source?
>=20
> I was referring to VMware cbt as that is a means of avoiding I/O on the=

> VM storage, i.e. the backup source.
>=20
> afaik, proxmox/kvm does not (yet) have something like that !?

Proxmox Backup Server and Proxmox VE supports tracking what changed with
dirty-bitmaps, this avoids reading anything from the storage and sending
anything over the network that has not changed.

>=20
> I you have lot's of terabytes of VM disks, each incremental backup run
> will hog the VMs storage (the same like full backup).
>=20
> In VMware, this is adressed with "changed block tracking", as a backup
> agent can determine which blocks of a VMs disks have changed between
> incremental backups, so it won't need to scan through the whole VMs
> disks on each differential/incremental backup run.

see above, we effectively support both - deduplication to reduce target
storage impact and incremental backups to reduce source storage and
network impact.

https://pbs.proxmox.com/docs/introduction.html#main-features

>=20
> see:
> https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1020128
> https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backup/vsphere/changed_block_tracking=
=2Ehtml?ver=3D100
>=20
> i don't want to criticize proxmox, i think proxmox is fantastic, i just=

> want to know what we get ( and what we don't get).
>=20

No worries, no offense taken ;)

cheers,
Thomas