From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <martin.konold@konsec.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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8D6666AEE
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:16:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9A354C176
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:16:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mx0.konsec.net (hbase53.h.konsec.com [88.99.94.78])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 87171C16A
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:16:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from kolab.konsec.com (unknown [10.21.1.190])
by mx0.konsec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4BBC85C0A3
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 22:11:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=konsec.com; s=201809;
t=1610226679;
h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:
message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:
content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=CaW7zBeu6hFgf9d/hhPYdr3lhtaB4kOtLLfanQ06co0=;
b=rLCwktUCykmTmEHCbsXAfKVwdltosJACh3wT7H/vccCYk5M7ApUeFtJOpGqcJp3UKJBz+w
Knz+09pPRpEoPvMI6ZAsrJZ0WlBnAhMt2fyPllurF53kus+mgV2zxGfwSEgdzkZTmF9YDt
kxjDpCDlct6OaA1p+bxl9fILx5tU8lhs6T43wc9zct0lXSv4D5za5fYnky7w0F/ayKkAnm
w3s/NAqJbIj9hkA1fNhQGo+RXMXGEWQX2A13WFizmamZ58SadzVt/5k6Qfhtp8CIYVrudL
p56g3vm2wPFnYEQ0Ze2MFQqqRpvGfoY808kTdgDtjWHiD+Pe5bv8NLd+az0XHA==
Sender: martin.konold@konsec.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 22:11:16 +0100
From: "Konold, Martin" <martin.konold@konsec.com>
To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
Reply-To: martin.konold@konsec.com
Message-ID: <51f40ab8b46dac203ce907c46318645f@konsec.com>
X-Sender: martin.konold@konsec.com
Organization: KONSEC GmbH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
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 JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all
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. [konsec.com]
Subject: [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: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 21:16:44 -0000
Hi there,
I am pretty new to Proxmox and deeply impressed by the quality of many=20
aspects of its design and implementation.
In my testing I observed that in case I have multiple PVE Clusters and=20
perform backups to a single datastore on a single PBS I experience a=20
lack of namespaces.
Why a single datastore on the PBS for multiple PVE Clusters?
For reasons of efficiency and avoidance of fragmentation I would like to=20
use a single RAIDZ2 as a target. The problem now arises that both PVE=20
clusters see the same "vm/100/{dateTime}".
What about prefixing the backups with the Cluster-Name e.g.=20
"pve1/vm/100{dateTime}"?
Is there something I overlooked sofar?
Regards
ppa. Martin Konold
--
Martin Konold - Prokurist, CTO
KONSEC GmbH -=E2=81=A0 make things real
Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 23690
Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: Andreas Mack
Im K=C3=B6ller 3, 70794 Filderstadt, Germany