Search results

Try to use IPv4 instead, at least for troubleshooting to exclude IPv6 has problems: Run this on a root shell: apt -o Acquire::ForceIPv4=true update && apt -o Acquire::ForceIPv4=true -d -y full-upgrade

Seems so. One can build a backup system in any way - if it works (reliably, on the long run), it is probably fine :-)

There is extensive documentation available: https://pbs.proxmox.com/wiki/Upgrade_from_3_to_4 If there are no specific reasons against it, I would follow that doc.

You are questioning my words that PBS "wants IOPS"? That's... surprising! "Backup storage: Prefer fast storage that delivers high IOPS for random IO workloads; use only enterprise SSDs for best results." -- https://pbs.proxmox.com/docs/installation.html#recommended-server-system-requirements...

Yes, that's possible. Please be aware that there may be some surprises hidden in this "absolute minimum"-approach: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/fabu-can-i-use-ceph-in-a-_very_-small-cluster.159671/

https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/chapter-pvecm.html#pvecm_qdevice_status_flags Edit: to see the current connection state: corosync-cfgtool -s ; corosync-cfgtool -n

Yes, it works. I said "suboptimal". For me this means that some potential is wasted - for one or another reason. In this case we know that PBS wants IOPS. For me this means that the best results require direct hardware access to fast storage, e.g. SSDs. Each abstraction layer like virtual disks...

No :) The used technology (Qemu) allows to "freeze" a machine and make a (temporary) snapshot. After this is done - which takes only a few seconds - the VM will continue to do whatever it is meant to do. Then the actual backup starts. Of course this invisible snapshot is removed when the...

You may read man zpool-import - there are some options to find a missing pool by searching for devices and also to import a "destroyed" pool (for example). Of course most of those commands are dangerous, but you don't have actual data on those drives yet, right? The drives are visible via lsblk -f?

I am not convinced! 4 binary TB (correct: 4 TiB) is 4398046511104 Bytes. And it is 4294967296 KILOBytes. The last one is possibly used to show wrongly 4.2 TB...

Perhaps a maximum filesize limit is hit somewhere? Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems#Limits

That's surprising and not expected, of course. How did you create that pool? What gives "zpool status" before reboot and "zpool import" after it? We are talking "write cache", right? It tells ZFS that data has been written to disk while it actually is not. Theoretically that's fine, as long as...

For me? Any device with PLP. Via a German search engine: https:// geizhals.de/?cat=hdssd&xf=7156_Power-Loss Protection~7525_SATA Most of my SSDs are "Enterprise class". Most of my NVMe are not. This make no sense, necessarily. But especially the Homelab requires compromises...

Both (!) is suboptimal. (You know that, right?) But if I am forced to choose: the PBS (or any backup system) should be independent from the source it will backup. You'll probably want the backup to be available and usable when (not: if!) the source dies, right?

You will get different (but valid!) answers to this question. But my decision is: one service == one VM! This especially means that I do separate docker containers in a single VM each. Yes, this seems to waste resources. But I like it this way - and one Docker container can not interfere...

Probably: yes! But please: PVE is meant to be the basis of a multitude of VMs. Put it on a stable hardware and avoid each and every "ideas" possible on this lowest level. Please! This means PVE "owns" the hardware! No dual-boot whatever OS you like. Disclaimer: just my pure opinion, not...

Ideal? No! Acceptable? Maybe! It always depends on your expectations! I have some nodes (in a cluster) which boots from a single device. (Because of the restrictions of a Mini-PC in a $Homelab.) But the hosted VMs live on a redundant one. What do you require? What do you on expect when...

You list only a single pool named "special" consisting of a single (triple!) mirrored vdev! There is no "Special Device" involved! Not sure what you want to achieve and what to recommend... sorry.

You say "3" but you list five. If you can actually run more than three then I would evaluate Ceph. With only three I would use ZFS with replication. Most of the drives are HDDs, right? In that case I would highly recommend multiple ZFS mirrors (aka Raid10) with a supporting "Special Device"...

My PBS's use surprisingly low CPU resources. The limits come from the storage system. Usually. I would opt for the low power device to run 24*7 and cascade the other one, as mentioned. I am not sure if I understand that correctly. "Normal"/classic backups are "vzdump"-based backups. Each and...