Am besten immer mit Quota arbeiten.
Der GC kann nicht laufen, da ZFS zum löschen auch Metadaten schreiben muss, braucht man selbst zum löschen erst einmal ein wenig Platz.
Falls das trotzdem noch einmal passiert gibt es eine einfach Lösung...
Isn't bcachefs still developed outside the kernel due to it's maintainers inability to cooperate with other people by following the kernel developers processes?
Then I will pass
Ich würde auch kein stinkendes Windows laufen lassen, wenn nicht unbedingt nötig ;)
Aber ja, ich lasse auch ca. 10 Windows VMs mit 100GB laufen. Aber die sind auch nur einmal (nach Erstellung) gesichert, weil die keine schützenswerte Daten...
Zaubern kann da keiner. 20TB sind schon ein Klops.
Selbst reines rsync muss die Datenmenge duchflöhen.
Von verify/garbage auf lahmen HDDs will ich gar nicht sprechen.
Of course, and I would even say obviously (but seems not so), it is not about replacing the MiB option with GiB, but having a GiB option additionally...
Proxmox VMs sind blockstorage. PBS sichert nicht mit ZFS, sondern mit eigenen Chunks.
Das ist architekturbedingt langsam.
Wenn du es also einfach haben willst:
- Halte die VMs klein. 32GB sollte mehr als genug sein. Dann geht auch der Backup...
1: because the answer to 3 is yes, the bitmap tracks dirty writes since the start of the backup, since the backup itself is based on that point in time (it uses copy-before-write filtering, so that data being overwritten is backed-up before it is...
Should have been more precise.
I think it should be done like php.ini settings (and many other software) uses these settings.
344M
5G
1T
Right know, I have to calculate "hmm... 1GB is 1024MB. So that means * 2 * 2 = 4096 gives me a 4GB machine...
We have PBS for local backup of our HA cluster, various proxmox servers around the server room and our build proxmox servers. They have various schedules and retention times dependent on data and all encrypted of course. Then we have an air...
Maybe you are using SSDs or only 1TB drives with a low resilver time. IMHO even then RAIDZ1 is not really save. Imagine if one disk fails, and you switch out the wrong disk. ZFS has almost no guardrails and will let you do many stupid things...
For your information, your 4 wide RAIDZ1 offers 66.66% storage efficiency, while being very insecure. That is not that much better than a way better performing mirror at 50%.
You won't see this problem directly in ZFS. You will notice that...
I know it is pedantic, but in this specific case, there is no padding :)
He/she is wasting storage because of pool geomerty.
With 4 drives, we get a stripe 4 drives wide.
Each stripe has three 4k data sectors (12k) and one 4k parity sector.
For...
Lots do. I also always have to suggest this as well. If it were such a bad idea local-zfs wouldn't use it. I made a ticket in argument of changing the default if you care.
I have a little snippet here which might be useful if you still need to...
I agree. First performance and iops will suffer compared to a mirror or striped setup, second it will lead to waste due to padding see:
https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/fabu-can-i-use-zfs-raidz-for-my-vms.159923/
Another issue are the large...
Therefore I did not specify the disk. If you do, you need -r as option
So you missed checking the thin provision box in your storage configuration in the PVE UI:
before we dive too deep into snapshots and their storage consumption, we should IMHO look first at two more important issues.
I would argue that running RAIDZ1 is unsafe. Dell marked RAID5 to be against best practice and unsafe something around...
if you read the topic, and if you have same problème, then fleecing greatly help.
But as we have not info about your case, nobody can guess.
Open new topic is better with your specs and your flow