It is recommended to use ssd in the PBS document, But as we all know ssd is considered more prone to damage and data loss than hdd.
should i use hdd or ssd for Proxmox Backup Server?
- Thread starter why-be-banned
- Start date
Enterprise SSDs last as long as HDDs do, even longer. So this is no longer up2date. Use SSDs for PBS if you backup large amount of data.
At least use SSDs in ZFS as Special Devices to keep performance up.
Yes, but Enterprise SSDs also cost about 10x the price of HDDs.
I use NAS HDDs and backup everything on my NAS. I also use ZFS replication that makes a backup of everything on my NAS to a RAIDZ2 pool of used Entrerprise HDDs on a different machine. For my home system, the performance is more than sufficient and I have not had any problems yet. I also have 2 extra HDDs of the same size in case of failed drives.
My total cost of all the HDDs for NAS(4 drives 2 new @ $80 each & 2 used @$16 each) & the backup (8 drives @ $16 per drive) is less than $325.
The point being it totally depends on your setup, your requirements, your budget and your threshold for failure/performance.
I use NAS HDDs and backup everything on my NAS. I also use ZFS replication that makes a backup of everything on my NAS to a RAIDZ2 pool of used Entrerprise HDDs on a different machine. For my home system, the performance is more than sufficient and I have not had any problems yet. I also have 2 extra HDDs of the same size in case of failed drives.
My total cost of all the HDDs for NAS(4 drives 2 new @ $80 each & 2 used @$16 each) & the backup (8 drives @ $16 per drive) is less than $325.
The point being it totally depends on your setup, your requirements, your budget and your threshold for failure/performance.
Last edited:
You should use SSDs but I guess for your scenario HDDs are sufficient.
I use such a setup on a small company (4 users, not much data) and the solution is perfectly sufficient.
I wouldn't use a HDD-only datastore when storing more than a few (lower single digits) TBs of backups. HDDs+SSDs might work fine with more storage but don't expect great performance. Verifying backups and restores will still take an eternity. If you care about uptime, fast replacement of failed disks or frequent integrity checks, there is no alternative to SSD-only storage.
Bonjour!
First post on thoses forums.
From experience with pbs between 40TB to 200TB using mainly HDD and ZFS, i have seen huge drop of efficiency especially for task management like verification and garbage collection.
For smaller one (ranges: 40TB), it's manageable as soon as you maintain below 70% occupation.
Server with SSDs for OS will perform way better. RAM arc attribution should stay closest possible from ZFS recommendations (1GB per TB+2) definitely.
So, again, from experience, hybrib seems the way to go.
For servers around 100TB, you'd need to invest close to the hundreds of thousands(CAD) even if you include basic extras for parity.
First post on thoses forums.
From experience with pbs between 40TB to 200TB using mainly HDD and ZFS, i have seen huge drop of efficiency especially for task management like verification and garbage collection.
For smaller one (ranges: 40TB), it's manageable as soon as you maintain below 70% occupation.
Server with SSDs for OS will perform way better. RAM arc attribution should stay closest possible from ZFS recommendations (1GB per TB+2) definitely.
So, again, from experience, hybrib seems the way to go.
For servers around 100TB, you'd need to invest close to the hundreds of thousands(CAD) even if you include basic extras for parity.