From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 9BBE162F8D for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:52:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9109828570 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:52:47 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E875828560 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:52:45 +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 B622E44201; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:52:45 +0200 (CEST) To: Alexandre DERUMIER , Proxmox VE user list References: <7d1bd7a4-f47b-4a1a-9278-ff1889508c33@gmail.com> <1768587204.461.1594383204281@webmail.proxmox.com> <450971473.487.1594395714078@webmail.proxmox.com> <1514606299.525.1594478405167@webmail.proxmox.com> <16057806.272035.1594737045788.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <0852a3fa-ab39-d551-5a01-0264687d4b56@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:52:41 +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: <16057806.272035.1594737045788.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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] 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:52:47 -0000 Hi, On 14.07.20 16:30, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > I don't have tested it yet and read the full docs, The following gives a quick overview: https://pbs.proxmox.com/docs/introduction.html#main-features > > but it is possible to do ceph to ceph backup with ceph snapshots (instead qemu bitmap tracking)? No. ceph, or other storage snapshots, are not used for backup in PBS. > > Currently in production, we are backuping like that, with incremental snapshot, > > we keep X snapshots on ceph backup storage by vm, and production ceph cluster only keep the last snasphot. > > The main advantage, is that we are only doing a full backup once, then incremental backups forever. > (and we have checkum verifications,encryption,...) on ceph backup Proxmox Backup Server effectively does that too, but independent from the source storage. We always get the last backup index and only upload the chunks which changed. For running VMs dirty-bitmap is on to improve this (avoids reading of unchanged blocks) but it's only an optimization - the backup is incremental either way. > We can restore full block volume, but also selected files with mounting the volume with nbd. There's a block driver for Proxmox Backup Server, so that should work just the same way.