PBS is a rather poor technology for file backups. If you don't need blockstorage but files, something like robocopy, rsycn, zfs send or the likes will perform miles better, because it only has to read metadata (and for ZFS not even that). PBS on...
Jesus, these prices are insane.
Anyway, the PSU was used (Privatanbieter means private seller) and you don't need a CPU cooler (AMD has one included), nor a case fan.
In regard to the discussion: I remember that @Falk R. mentioned several times in the German forum that using ZFS on HW RAID is ok if (and only if):
You know what you are doing (which imho doesn't hold true for people calling others "dogmatic"...
The point is: you can not know that.
Of course you are free to use any available technology you want - and a lot of installations are using hardware Raid (edit: ... without a checksumming filesystem). No fight here; if it works for you/them...
I don't think is does 4k r/w and even on my consumer hardware I linked to you in another post I can easely reach 100MB/s.
Anyway, in the real world, PBS will be way less relevant, since you only need to send changes. So in your case the local...
I've already written what it does, and am not about to go on the full defensive. Reiterating succinctly: This is a wrapper for PBC. It adds inheritable backup config from within the dataset properties (vs. remembering to modify your PBC scripts)...
AFIK you can easely test this. Just start two backups at the same time. Then run it again. Now it should be 100% dublicates and you are only benchmarking SHA256
That is exactly my guess.
3,6GBit/s is pretty far away from your goal of 10GBit/s...
Second test was on the PBS.
Not sure if I can follow.
I would even argue that the culprit is both CPUs.
The first clear bottleneck seems to be TLS.
I gave you 4 parts of TLS.
We can rule out 1.
According to you, we can also rule out 2.
For 3...
What speeds do you expect?
I think that 3GB/s per second is already pretty fast.
What is your target speed you aim at?
Is the current speed a problem? Or are you just surprised that you can't reach line speed and suspect an issue with your setup...
Nur weil etwas möglich ist, ist es noch lange nicht sinvoll.
Aber ja, Server2 könnte mit HDD passtrough als VM laufen, sowie auch PBS3 eine VM sein könnte und auch Server4.
Nur warum? Und warum all die negativen Konsequenzen in Kauf nehmen? Und...
That's mainly for legal reasons so not comparable. Also zfs isn't just a one-man-show and has multiple comanies funding development and is mature enough not to loose data. In contrast bcachefs developer Kent Overstreet wanted to violate kernel...
And this is unlikely to change since the main developer of bcachefs has shown that he isn't able to conform to the kernel developers workflow: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Bcachefs-Removed-Linux-6.18
This is imho a large red flag why I...
Server1: PVE für VMs.
Server2: TrueNAS oder OMV ZFS für Daten
Server3: PBS für Backups der PVE VMs
Server4: ZFS destination für ZFS von Server2
Dann noch Server2 und Server3 mit S3 Backup ergänzen.
Ja, aber das ist noch immer Mist.
Nehmen wir mal an, du hättest nur 100 Fotos à 10MB also 1GB an Daten.
PBS, erste Sicherung:
Liest die komplette 1GB. Macht ca. 4MB chucks, sichert die weg.
PBS, zweite Sicherung:
Liest nochmals die kompletten...
Dazu nochmal meine Gedanken:
Backups, die du auf mehrere Bänder verteilt musst, sind Riesenmist
Bänder sind sowieso ein totes Pferd und nur in ganz engen Nischen alternativlos
Änderungen des Workflows helfen häufig immens ohne hohe Kosten zu...
Warum überhaupt OMV? Wenn es dir um eine GUI für Dateifreigaben gibt, dafür tut es dann auch eine Debian-VM mit Webmin oder Cockpit. Oder ein lxc-Container mit den turnkey-fileserver o.ä, etwa https://github.com/bashclub/zamba-lxc-toolbox...
Luckily enough both are not five years old, the first version of ZFS was released in 2006 and development started in 2001 if I recall correctly.
In contrast the BSD filesystems as well as xfs or ext2/ext3/ext4 are basically decades old but they...