From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <rightkicktech@gmail.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 3BBE771037 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:05:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B60B22E0F for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:05:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7EACD22DFA for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:05:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id x21so916505uan.6 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=9MLh/v05ms1nYNDncC7/2Q0xJFRNRXIjOhxyhpcepaU=; b=jOhqYMPJZiWkVEL8xxXVxTHk2moyKYntph7riNO6i+zM5xBI0e4tdp1eiwVf2dDEgF 6WaQd2/vSPcQO2NhVXhG4S24aTqmwWwVDpYehIV5G5GuSe2Pkydc9khMavkkblmIT4Qe y5veub7E8QFJJQzlIv2M6CRI8QIGk327YXC1yTNeILe8Ic+eh2ZN0/nMczqoiCb0QZqq MW2OVhIFc5z3XzFcjPJr7avnhE+pRYbkJGhnKtklmoeZK4HP5M290gG8ej8SWhglRsHp K3BLbPJadfae3SIWJeJhjSRkf6TbZ4XnZ0onQkRRWPnkBqb9+MgA2soFfR7oj2OH+et4 6Ejg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=9MLh/v05ms1nYNDncC7/2Q0xJFRNRXIjOhxyhpcepaU=; b=XXWeTNlGjaVh1mQ/PCSAN8+dAwnxe4pO/slUqmh33qv9m/5shYabF85O/aNXhLCNeV wdKWlgSDp8xq0KkN66fPGgYl69DNgZKIjDMXPuj/X8wpxjDmfkvuGIvRRpAjx2BurpjW E6wwB4oudt86Re1c7tUbv1t/NZ83XQDN29dDs2Ppp/a0CMR3atC0fY0PGA8UKUXfVnmH rynV6rxo/U6QUDmiksvItkBNG7JmmhWM3RlYcPN1nRLDQQ3GLAx58PymXXHUYn89OWbB 1yapWKfjub6kBrqQ0fkCu7y2pVXVJsxuqckMeVErc9EvLF2R8XkPIciT8JekL1pnK14I 4BEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530179dNM8/+Uqkwvwb1TGBhdGJx05HMdLVQrkvRJ2UpuIt+77I5 tZdNBJ8bknjKnBrIWqTBJnxl5WWjXMEElFln8Qms49E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVhMYialVDj1gSv8k1YqgEsx/tCgLPB96OdEOatnB+3YX8Dr509SatCpYnK7QBSkpa8YjXNVmdJHa6WfaP0FA= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:3d86:: with SMTP id l6mr1328418uac.99.1631088311741; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 01:05:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Alex K <rightkicktech@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:05:00 +0300 Message-ID: <CABMULt+s5D-BODXQYoRF9sE2_cS1ZB7hG+c-M-D9=+iLf=6XMg@mail.gmail.com> To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.082 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: [PVE-User] VM storage and replication 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: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 08:05:51 -0000 Hi all, I have setup a dual server setup, with latest proxmox v7.x. Each host with its own local storage. No shared storage (CEPH, GlusterFS). I understand I can have VMs hosted on top LVM with qcow2 disk images or on top thin LVM as raw thin LVM volumes. On both cases I still keep the option to be able to perform VM backups. Which one is the preferred way according to your experience? I will try to do some quick tests on the IO performance between the two. Also, I was thinking to replicate the VMs from one host to the other. I understand that for the Proxmox integrated replication feature I need ZFS backed storage. As I am not much into ZFS, although I really enjoy FreeNAS and its great features and will definitely look into it later, I was thinking to prepare a custom script that would snapshot the LVM volumes where the VM images reside and sync the VM disks from one host to the other, using rsync, just for a local copy of them. Of course I will take care to have an external media also to periodically export the VMs for backup purposes, though I would like to have a local copy of the VM disk images at the other host, readily available in case I face issues with the external media or one of the hosts. What do you think about this approach? Am I missing some other feature or better approach? Regrading the sync/replication of the VMs between the hosts (without ZFS), I was thinking also to have a dedicated local LVM volume for these periodic backup jobs configured within Proxmox and then the custom script to just rsync these backup images between the two hosts. This seems a simple one though it increases the storage requirements, while with the previous approach with the custom script, the script would snapshot, sync to the other side and remove the snapshot without keeping a redundant local copy of the disk image in the same host. Sorry for the long read. Appreciate any feedback. Alex