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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A4463C7A for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:31:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 61CF41A027 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:31:50 +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 74FF81A01C for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:31:49 +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 448CB42D57 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:31:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:31:42 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: 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> <0852a3fa-ab39-d551-5a01-0264687d4b56@proxmox.com> <4b7e3a23d9b1f41ef51e6363373072d265797380.camel@junkyard.4t2.com> In-Reply-To: <4b7e3a23d9b1f41ef51e6363373072d265797380.camel@junkyard.4t2.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1594969118.mb1771vpca.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.108 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] 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: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:31:50 -0000 On July 16, 2020 3:03 pm, Tom Weber wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2020, 17:52 +0200 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > So there is exactly one dirty-bitmap that get's nulled after a backup? >=20 > I'm asking because I have Backup setups with 2 Backup Servers at > different Locations, backing up (file-level, incremental) on odd days > to server1 on even days to server2.=20 >=20 > Such a setup wouldn't work with the block level incremental backup and > the dirty-bitmap for pve vms + pbs, right? >=20 > Regards, > Tom right now, this would not work since for each backup, the bitmap would=20 be invalidated since the last backup returned by the server does not=20 match the locally stored value. theoretically we could track multiple=20 backup storages, but bitmaps are not free and the handling would quickly=20 become unwieldy. probably you are better off backing up to one server and syncing=20 that to your second one - you can define both as storage on the PVE side=20 and switch over the backup job targets if the primary one fails. theoretically[1] 1.) backup to A 2.) sync A->B 3.) backup to B 4.) sync B->A 5.) repeat works as well and keeps the bitmap valid, but you carefully need to=20 lock-step backup and sync jobs, so it's probably less robust than: 1.) backup to A 2.) sync A->B where missing a sync is not ideal, but does not invalidate the bitmap. note that your backup will still be incremental in any case w.r.t.=20 client <-> server traffic, the client just has to re-read all disks to=20 decide whether it has to upload those chunks or not if the bitmap is not=20 valid or does not exist. 1: theoretically, as you probably run into=20 https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2864 unless you do your=20 backups as 'backup@pam', which is not recommended ;) =