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 5A09466D8B for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:21:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5107814EC6 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:20:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 A4E2E14EBB for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:20:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id g24so17639863edw.9 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:20:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=odiso-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rv77v4B0N/w6EGJXNmTmDXSYkhXOWRvC8NODp80hADI=; b=ag7dXdlobUhXWUTlVwvLXumRyvjiHa0xxcviVY6Zv1K0YSKmF5tlrF80TSRCK/0eH3 E4caTz7fmoDq4LirO1WnrUZO0cB8kkbO7Poj5h0G5+Mf62mLz5rUlYOubNMAOoT4h+4A tnazDqlK75rOOziDp08aeKYHaT70kfy/tfG9Yo5lGEBkSMRn9+Ex+3VTUsbOpGDnEr2p uBO9opyGaQEMqUFLAJZ+f8YjJHorJ831oBXQoHj5hYOo+Ij4cBiW2qbQuO1n3pQ79vNO BPllCK29GE64Sja+sJlPz1aaON9twThDJWORpk9djuut7Tv+bVzGD255itfeowA0LTmh 91wQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rv77v4B0N/w6EGJXNmTmDXSYkhXOWRvC8NODp80hADI=; b=Png0DNZx3SLndRnZLQG11EWhA+8qH1IxI+SA4RsIOUQs5LiOyroECOOxGQTwZ9UgaK UwCM49sqxf/cpLe2cQ8+hjABVqKJdbLtEKsS422w20c6Mch2Si74HG4aZe7xwhYVwOlB 7EGL2A0Kvt6kKr48l5v6Q2MkLR0p/urpNk/tPc1OfQZtHJwTVs3krJ7zKy3u/JlXb4fc fNcsNUHHAH6Mq7aZndz/witP8YP9TqcXyE5BGr5pjXkGOMBGI9XDZla7tYygc3kBexFh lhgC6kxVvSd9v95j06m5QEtANQd6KbdRWxikPofzn0dmaqFDWfR0ywv9qUwW6hc+Xq/1 4bPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DYk5EHwjSqbIN4s4mVsFl/53TzpcflcYQvXgnmphHR+h9sNsW OZtFE6f5dJJXhz1CuRsbnYjBQUQPjADbC6iqBgI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzcv84ZBEb0zo7gzTbQ7BoWvPmLdY1m8/zc2z+eSAh4bO2OI7FI/DTXAGSnj4oe3/ykNRe6ZA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d906:: with SMTP id a6mr13494330edr.121.1610349641408; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.50] ([79.132.253.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i13sm7265453edu.22.2021.01.10.23.20.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:20:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <927b14bed1ae378ee740fe7b4eb75cbecaa80811.camel@odiso.com> From: aderumier@odiso.com To: martin.konold@konsec.com, Proxmox VE user list Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:20:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <51f40ab8b46dac203ce907c46318645f@konsec.com> References: <51f40ab8b46dac203ce907c46318645f@konsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.273 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:21:19 -0000 Hi, I think it's on the roadmap. (could be great to have some king on namespace too on storages, to be able to share them across multiple cluster) Le samedi 09 janvier 2021 à 22:11 +0100, Konold, Martin a écrit : > > 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