From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jan+pve@brand-web.net>
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 27B6966B0C
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:37:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E978C476
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:36:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail01.biocrafting.net (mail01.biocrafting.net
[IPv6:2a0a:51c0:7:1020::103])
(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 8FAD8C46A
for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:36:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brand-web.net;
s=2018; t=1610231786;
h=from:from: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:
in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
bh=ZC2s1f69MifNz9MPqnXl5BStSE4HfeTkONlbAlAIgmM=;
b=XFfNVikQCQ/hemWMvNVDPw9qU7hmsJ00Eka9kcvaRSMdzTcQcyHN9D1kWY8YdDcOuMAkr0
UTbrr0Xblm1unVFH6S3xbMlzvzi3LrtfQtw4WjeBnEqsetozRZEnKVn4AEguUlup2EaSLT
LqH6qGvRcXWZAatZXSt+jfTVGL4z/0iUGZJpld4MwmXlQke6ofiTvh7W2WZqt0OU1Dhq2B
DcSDh2XyMeDkD+POZTwJSJ1CBtu7Vboc1lUX9Hgm437ecJpTw9s0Y36/KpnXFjJfr+rs55
Qg0pCCRQ9jmJTlFYORv+slakLGb6wX6CBuv+itokuupQMZA4RivDs30Yr9B1hg==
To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
References: <51f40ab8b46dac203ce907c46318645f@konsec.com>
From: Jan Brand <jan+pve@brand-web.net>
Message-ID: <7602fc38-076f-575d-f8e6-35a391add4a5@brand-web.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2021 23:36:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51f40ab8b46dac203ce907c46318645f@konsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: de-DE
Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING;
auth=pass smtp.auth=jan@brand-web.net smtp.mailfrom=jan@brand-web.net
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
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, brand-web.net]
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: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 22:37:05 -0000
Hi Martin,
you can create multiple datastores on one zpool, just create an
additional zfs dataset and configure the second pbs datastore on it.
This way all data is stored on the same RAIDZ array, if this is your
intention.
If you want use the deduplication feature of pbs across backups of
multiple clusters, I have to disappoint you. Afaik the deduplication is
per datastore.
Another "solution" would be to manually avoid overlapping VMIDs, but
this would be error-prone and means a lot of work in an existing
environment.
I would create one backup datastore per cluster and call it a day.
Best regards,
Jan
Am 09.01.2021 um 22:11 schrieb Konold, Martin:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am pretty new to Proxmox and deeply impressed by the quality of many
> aspects of its design and implementation.
>
> In my testing I observed that in case I have multiple PVE Clusters and
> perform backups to a single datastore on a single PBS I experience a
> 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 use a single RAIDZ2 as a target. The problem now arises that both
> PVE clusters see the same "vm/100/{dateTime}".
>
> What about prefixing the backups with the Cluster-Name e.g.
> "pve1/vm/100{dateTime}"?
>
> Is there something I overlooked sofar?
>
> Regards
> ppa. Martin Konold
>
> --
> Martin Konold - Prokurist, CTO
> KONSEC GmbH - make things real
> Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 23690
> Geschäftsführer: Andreas Mack
> Im Köller 3, 70794 Filderstadt, Germany
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-user mailing list
> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user