[PVE-User] Some thought about zfs based configurations

Michael Rasmussen mir at miras.org
Fri Jul 31 13:47:26 CEST 2015

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:33:00 +0200
Pongrácz István <pongracz.istvan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Summary
> I think using ZFS as filesystem has more potential than recent storage/backup model used by pve 3.4 or 4.x.
> I wrote this "article" to try to push proxmox team to improve the system in a way or give them a feedback, your direction is a good way :)
> I have a proxmox node, which is using zfs in such a way I described (except btrfs) and that node is up an running for more than 657 days now.
uptime for a server <=> security or stability. Long uptimes also means
a lot of active kernel bugs fixed in more resent kernels.

For your claim of been able to recover a node from crash quickly as a
consequence of using ZFS this can be easily achieved with the current
default install of Proxmox when sticking to these three rules:

1) A node is simply used as runtime for VM's/CT's.
2) All virtual disks for VM's/CT's resides on shared storage.
3) Backups are stored on shared storage as well.

Then to recover a node is simply a matter of reinstall from backup.

Michael Rasmussen

Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael <at> rasmussen <dot> cc
mir <at> datanom <dot> net
mir <at> miras <dot> org
/usr/games/fortune -es says:
Hey, if pi == 3, and three == 0, does that make pi == 0?  :-)
		-- Larry Wall in <199711011926.LAA25557 at wall.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/attachments/20150731/c02eb982/attachment.sig>

More information about the pve-user mailing list