From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.jaeger@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 13D7866D2D for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:36:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 084CD151C6 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:36:51 +0100 (CET) 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 5A7DD151BB for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:36:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 26C8943FF3; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:36:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:36:48 +0100 From: Dominic =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E4ger?= <d.jaeger@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <20210111073648.GA29825@mala> References: <51f40ab8b46dac203ce907c46318645f@konsec.com> <927b14bed1ae378ee740fe7b4eb75cbecaa80811.camel@odiso.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <927b14bed1ae378ee740fe7b4eb75cbecaa80811.camel@odiso.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.681 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 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Single BPS for multiple PVE lead to namespace conflict 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: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:36:51 -0000 On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:20:40AM +0100, aderumier@odiso.com wrote: > I think it's on the roadmap. You are right! > Backup to one (physical) datastore from multiple Proxmox VE clusters, avoiding backup naming conflicts https://pbs.proxmox.com/wiki/index.php/Roadmap