From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-user-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AACCF1FF399 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:24:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 79B20DC00; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:24:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 11:24:06 +0000 (UTC) To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <2e504103-279a-4b24-a918-70d68e63220c@oeg.com.au> References: <738ba899-5a52-4000-ba61-83dd0e360df4@elettra.eu> <6598939f-2be1-45a9-8cc5-c9c473373c29@oeg.com.au> <2b94dfec-54d4-4a48-a379-01ef15713da5@elettra.eu> <2e504103-279a-4b24-a918-70d68e63220c@oeg.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <mailman.88.1715253871.319.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> From: Alexander Burke via pve-user <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> Precedence: list Cc: Alexander Burke <alex@alexburke.ca> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> 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/> Reply-To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Unresponsive VM(s) during VZdump Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5552384677154668023==" Errors-To: pve-user-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-user" <pve-user-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> --===============5552384677154668023== Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <alex@alexburke.ca> X-Original-To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com Delivered-To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.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 97ABEC178C for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:24:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7AD0CDBD3 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:24:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out-183.mta0.migadu.com (out-183.mta0.migadu.com [IPv6:2001:41d0:1004:224b::b7]) (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 May 2024 13:24:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 11:24:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alexburke.ca; s=key1; t=1715253857; 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=m0qEg9EWENxbSAhn6aMDyATvf7HBu8wPe5kFWn94mvg=; b=YJB3RwdzUDLPj4hHcJHaw87GoCxm98lfR0TJbvCYOwvs0uyZRTEoicuBHcXuePN844JB3K euy5a7zF8ym4YX6gT8e4oUoQ5lBzXlagaa/EKszz9P4w6CzRFew6jzKi4Ko4zn5OoKQYgU BUAlkQ+166uf7NPFwKzEC/UnCMiSxEc= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Alexander Burke <alex@alexburke.ca> To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <11db3d6f-1879-44b3-9f99-01e6fde6ebc8@alexburke.ca> In-Reply-To: <2e504103-279a-4b24-a918-70d68e63220c@oeg.com.au> References: <738ba899-5a52-4000-ba61-83dd0e360df4@elettra.eu> <6598939f-2be1-45a9-8cc5-c9c473373c29@oeg.com.au> <2b94dfec-54d4-4a48-a379-01ef15713da5@elettra.eu> <2e504103-279a-4b24-a918-70d68e63220c@oeg.com.au> Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Unresponsive VM(s) during VZdump MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Correlation-ID: <11db3d6f-1879-44b3-9f99-01e6fde6ebc8@alexburke.ca> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.695 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS 0.8 Email that uses ascii formatting dividers and possible spam tricks 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. [alexburke.ca,proxmox.com] Hello all, My understanding is that if the backing store is ZFS, a snapshot of the zvol underlying the guest's disk(s) is instant and atomic, and the snapshot is what gets backed up so fleecing is moot. Am I wrong on this? I know nothing about Ceph other than the fact that it supports snapshots; assuming the above understanding is correct, does snapshot-based backup not work much the same way on Ceph? Cheers, Alex ---------------------------------------- 2024-05-09T10:11:20Z Mike O'Connor <mike@oeg.com.au>: > I played with all the drive interface settings, the end result was I lost customers because of backups causing windows drive failures. > Since fleecing was an option, I've not had a lockup. > > > > On 9/5/2024 7:32 pm, Iztok Gregori wrote: >> Hi Mike! >> >> On 09/05/24 11:30, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>> You need to enable fleecing in the advanced backup settings. A slow backup storage system will cause this issue, configuring fleecing will fix this by storing changes in a local sparse image. >> >> I see that fleecing is available from PVE 8.2, I will enable it next week once all the nodes will be upgraded to the latest version. >> >> Thanks for the suggestion. >> >> In the meantime I found this thread on the forum: >> >> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/high-io-wait-during-backups-after-upgrading-to-proxmox-7.113790/ >> >> which mention the max_workers parameter. I change it to 4 for the next scheduled backup and see if there are some improvements (I migrated the affected VMs to catch the new configuration). >> >> I will keep you posted! >> >> Iztok > > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > pve-user@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user --===============5552384677154668023== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list pve-user@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user --===============5552384677154668023==--