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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B6966B0C for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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