Search results

Dublette: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/pve-8-4-zu-9-1-6-upgrade-schl%C3%A4gt-fehl.181428/

Auch in englisch: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/bug-pbs-sync-pull-completely-ignores-bandwidth-setting.181430/

The setting in "Add: Sync Job Pull - Pull Direction" accepts a "Rate Limit:" in MiB/s = Mebi Bytes. The usual (but not all) bandwidth diagrams show Bits per second. Any chance this was the culprit...?

Echt? Ich sehe das fundamental anders. Einige interessante Features fehlen deinem Raid6 nämlich. Auch wenn der Augenmerk dort auf "kleine Systeme" liegt: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/fabu-this-is-just-a-small-setup-with-limited-resources-and-only-a-few-disks-should-i-use-zfs-at-all.160037/...

Please post English text (I see Cyrillic) - it increases the chance for a helpful reply ;-)

Depends on where you are looking from. When I start a Backup job on my cluster with five nodes... I get five backups running at the same time = one per node. The PBS handles this fine.

Vielleicht verwendet er intensiv solche Hilfsmittel und der Stil färbt ab?

I had tested latency half a year ago: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/qdevice-deployment.173182/post-805735 From my experiment it seems that a hundred milliseconds are tolerable.

Maybe there are some hints: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Web_Interface_Via_Nginx_Proxy

No. My hint regarding a separate NIC was for installing a PVE cluster member. A pure QDev has much simpler requirements ;-)

Maybe. I know for Datasets there are other attributes (meta-data) to evaluate. This thread is about a VM/ZVOL. Yeah, sounds clever! Thanks for adding this. But nevertheless the source ZVOL needs to be read, completely. And that was the main detail in the first two posts ;-)

Das sollte das normale Verhalten sein, sofern man eine "unrestricted group" - mit allen Nodes - definiert hat: https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-ha-manager.html#ha_manager_groups "Resources on unrestricted groups may run on any cluster node if all group members are offline, but they...

No! Just remove it from the backup then. There is the "Selection mode:" "all" - what I expect you to use until now. And there is "Exclude selected VMs". So you can have all VMs to be backuped, except the one (or multiple) you select in the multi-select drop-down list. (And there are some...

Just create that scenario, it will probably work. Please report back your experience here :) What I would do (if I would be forced to use a VM on Windows for this) is to make sure I give it a separate / independent NIC. I want the PVE node to have access to all VLANs/networks of the cluster...

Probably. As @SteveITS already said: a plain and minimal instance of Debian is sufficient. Well..., there may be different opinions about this one. Personally I do not like Windows systems to be a required part of my infrastructure. Two options I would prefer are: if you have an independent...

Without "add", right? I have this on some of my machines: ~# cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/99force-ipv4 Acquire::ForceIPv4 "true";

No. It is read completely, to seek and find modified chunks. Look at "write: 0 B/s" in every line ;-) In a simplified nutshell: the source is read chunk by chunk. The chunk is hashed. That checksum is sent to the PBS. The PBS notices that a chunk with this checksum is already present. Done...

Richtig. Da geht nur zusätzliche Energie drauf. Mir fallen seit einem halben Jahr viele Postings auf, die Antworten auf uralte Fragen geben. Also korrekte und wohl hilfreiche Antworten auf Fragen von vor einem, zwei oder drei Jahren. Und zwar als "First Post". Natürlich fehlt mir ein...

??? Vermutlich Autokorrektur...?

Well, the usual reasons against ZFS are a) some higher wearout = the SSD won't last as long as with LVM/ext4 and b) slower performance because of more write-activity. (And no PLP which would allow delaying the actual write...) The required amount of RAM for ZFS is not as high as very often...