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 8A7F2653E6 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6E7492251E for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:48:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (pmg.fws.fr [51.91.175.36]) (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 46E3E22504 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B27B0C1D50 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (zmproxy.fws.fr [10.29.1.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 38FB7C0188 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4CD8B79CF for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 139A58B79D0 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmproxy.fws.fr 139A58B79D0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=firewall-services.com; s=7DAD15A2-D84A-11E9-8F77-BEC4FAA34EBC; t=1595436035; bh=dTNiwDsoniuanQdcCs2xgw5jZJeRVZNoukBNlOZPSQc=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=t/+NGsugzeBrwl9BsCkJe9qzWnvMgccpWRfT7WckmQ+3w7OvSlJSyoUgN5m3F8DmT 3ERDpX/enBQ/l51W0ngVYXJeN+gzbvsD3AYB42JjR3doAcebGibuUU7MWBKQWKM7D6 WWUlQ/EeakOf3flP9Vd85T3jFk1+/g8CBLSmosdcX6uLlVD6HC5fZeUts/vcBh0Se3 t18G0af1+khIQ2Jyv8vx5hhKM6HkT49jT0IDWZdaFBEXyXooDluuCdehxXEoVHyjFM 4PGwvvFl03O/2mP91AhSMX1lYrTsppIAI27xdgHA7DcxiWtSaGcmXdvCGKvWMDI+BP u3+HL9lPPEixA== Received: from zmstore.fws.fr (zmstore.fws.fr [10.29.3.15]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0B38B79CF for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Daniel Berteaud To: pve-user Message-ID: <1110267368.76036.1595436034847.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.29.1.17] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3955 (ZimbraWebClient - GC83 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3953) Thread-Index: VzsbX2+8kQMJxxCJDdREmWwBK++MFA== Thread-Topic: PBS : is dirty-bitmap really accurate ? X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.005 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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 HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message 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 T_REMOTE_IMAGE 0.01 Message contains an external image URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [fws.fr, firewall-services.com] URI_TRUNCATED 0.001 Message contained a URI which was truncated Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: [PVE-User] PBS : is dirty-bitmap really accurate ? 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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:49:17 -0000 Hi=20 I've started playing with PBS on some VM. So far, it's looking really promi= zing.=20 There's one strange thing though : the percent of the dirty data. For examp= le, I backup one VM every 2 or 3 days. It's a moderately busy server, mainl= y serving a MariaDB database (zabbix server + mariadb). On each backup, I g= et similar dirty values :=20 INFO: using fast incremental mode (dirty-bitmap), 492.7 GiB dirty of 590.0 = GiB total=20 While I'm sur not even 10% of this has really been written.=20 Get more or less the same problem on other VM. One which I know just sleep = all day (my personnal OnlyOffice document server), and which I backup daily= , and get values like :=20 INFO: using fast incremental mode (dirty-bitmap), 5.0 GiB dirty of 10.0 GiB= total=20 Or another small one (personnal samba DC controler) :=20 INFO: using fast incremental mode (dirty-bitmap), 13.0 GiB dirty of 20.0 Gi= B total=20 The only write activity for those 2 are just a few KB or maybe MB of log li= nes. Respectivly 5 and 13GB of dirty blocks seems unreal.=20 Am I the only one seeing this ? Could the dirty-bitmap mark dirty blocks wi= thout write activity somehow ?=20 Regards,=20 Daniel=20 --=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ ] =09 Daniel Berteaud=20 FIREWALL-SERVICES SAS, La s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des r=C3=A9seaux=20 Soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de Services en Logiciels Libres=20 T=C3=A9l : +33.5 56 64 15 32=20 Matrix: @dani:fws.fr=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ | https://www.firewall-services.com ]= =20