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 A8D6666AEE for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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