Sure, ignore the clickbait title here, but this sheds some light:

https://youtu.be/m0GPnA9pW8k

GamersNexus has been validly hit by many others online for their deliberately-disingenuous attacks on LTT - honestly it just got embarrassing at a point, and really pathetic. I used to love them. I even have one of their very handy anti-static workmats.

Once they deliberately fanned the flames of false controversy enough times (oh the chances I gave them…), I unsubscribed and stopped following them. A shame too, because Steve seems like a pro-consumer rights type of guy. But that’s not good enough on its own to keep me a patron of anyone.

I’m pretty sure LMG did release a shockingly-detailed video about how they make money and where that money goes, and how much to employees (the math can be done to provide the numbers). Do I think the funds for the jet purchase would have been better spent on employees? Sure. I don’t expect to agree with every decision made by content creators - I expect to disagree with many. This isn’t one that cancels them for me.

Hahaha, i"m kind of dumbfounded by the very poor takes in this entire thread and how little research everyone did - and the weird expectation many of them have that they would be privy to the details of a investigation about an HR matter regarding harassment accusations. That info…by the very nature of what it encompasses, was always going to stay out of the public sphere.

Strongly agreed, yeah - very happy to see the boost to Linux use from their championing of it!

Most of the comments here are very wrong, assuming the worst, or deliberately have their head in the sand about some of the controversies and the reality of those situations.

LTT is casual-ish tech - not as mainstream casual as MKBHD ot UrAvgConsumer, but way more casual than say, Craft Computing.

I consume a ludicrous amount (and wide range) of TechTube and have seen plenty of controversies and have ditched plenty of channels due to scandals. GamersNexus used to be a favorite. Emphasis on past tense. They did a lot of deliberate hit pieces on LTT and it’s rather well documented - Zip Tie Tuning/Tech by Alex has a fantastic video shedding light on the misbehavior of GamersNexus - plenty of other folks also covered their motivations and unfair approach. Linus is a character - and definitely can be emotional - but his dialogue attempts with Steve were commendable - Steve just decided to be a whiny baby instead. Self-stylized “journalist” one might say.

Controversies fanned by GN are what rendered a lot of people anti-LTT, and unable to rectify their views once the attacks impacted. LTT had plenty to criticize (and I do), but the GN attack topics were not them.

I almost ditched LTT and boycotted them after all those attacks. But once the smoke cleared and reality made itself known, I was pleasantly surprised to have not knee-jerk reacted.

LTT like all channels is beholden to nonsense algorithmic marketing that all channels suffer, so I’ve noted more clickbaity behavior in recent videos.

I’m a far-left, pro-union, Linux-loving, Windows-hating, Apple-hating, Big Tech-hating, anti-sexual assault, anti-billionaire, pro-little guy type of person.

I consider LTT to be edutainment with more good impact than bad. They’ll suffer some of the pitfalls of capitalism with some aggressive marketing. They’ll naturally need to compete in the YT space. But the characters running the show seem to have their heads screwed on right and their morals in a good place. They will make mistakes. The WAN show sheds light on it - including at times Linus’ difficulty in handling blame. But he also often comes around - and all things considered I’m not too mad about that as his primary negative trait.

I don’t love the private plane purchase but there’s so much more nuance to that with an intended sell of it than others give allowance to understand.

Also I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight Linus’ pro-trans (and broadly, LGBTQ+) approach - his support/ready defense of Emily when she came out was great to see.

Ro Khanna is a Justice Democrat. We WANT people like them more prevalent in the party, running for higher office.

It took me a while to find a moment to give it a go, but I created a test dataset under my main ZFS pool and added it to a CT - it did snapshots and replication fine.

The one question I have is - for the bind-mounts, I didn’t have any size set - and they accurately show remaining disk space for the pool they are on.

Here it seems I MUST give a size? Is that correct? I didn’t really want to allocate a smaller size for any given dataset, if possible. I saw something about storage-backed mount points, and adding them (via config file, versus GUI) and setting “size=0” - if this is of a ZFS dataset, would this “turn” it into a directory and prevent snapshotting or replicating to other nodes?

One last question - when I’m adding anything to the Datacenter’s storage section, do I want to check availability for all nodes? Does that matter?

Thanks again!

Ah makes sense. Will try to give this a go tomorrow when i have time/energy. Appreciate it, definitely will do!

Oh I added the disk resources via shell (via nano) to that config for the NFS server CT, following some guide for bind-mounts. I guess that’s the wrong format and treated them like directories instead of ZFS pools?

I’ll follow the formatting you’ve used (ans I think what results “naturally” from the GUI adding of such a ZFS storage dataset.

And yeah I don’t think replication works if it’s not ZFS, so I need to fix that.

Per your other commend - agreed regarding the snapshotting - it’s already saved me on a Home Assistant VM I have running, so I’d love to have that properly working for the actual data in the ZFS pools too.

Is it generally a best practice to only create the “root” ZFS pool and not these datasets within Proxmox (or any hypervisor)?

Thanks so much for your assistance BTW, this has all been reassuring that I’m not in some lost fool land, haha.

So currently I haven’t re-added any of the data-storing ZFS pools to the Datacenter storage section (wanted to understand what I’m doing before trying anything). Right now my storage.cfg reads as follows (without having added anything):

zfspool: virtualizing
        pool virtualizing
        content images,rootdir
        mountpoint /virtualizing
        nodes chimaera,executor,lusankya
        sparse 0

zfspool: ctdata
        pool virtualizing/ctdata
        content rootdir
        mountpoint /virtualizing/ctdata
        sparse 0

zfspool: vmdata
        pool virtualizing/vmdata
        content images
        mountpoint /virtualizing/vmdata
        sparse 0

dir: ISOs
        path /virtualizing/ISOs
        content iso
        prune-backups keep-all=1
        shared 0

dir: templates
        path /virtualizing/templates
        content vztmpl
        prune-backups keep-all=1
        shared 0

dir: backup
        path /virtualizing/backup
        content backup
        prune-backups keep-all=1
        shared 0

dir: local
        path /var/lib/vz
        content snippets
        prune-backups keep-all=1
        shared 0

Under my ZFS pools (same on each node), I have the following:

The “holocron” pool is a RAIDZ1 combo of 4x8TB HDDs, “virtualizing” is RAID mirrored 2x2TB SSDs, and “spynet” is a single 4TB SSD (NVR storage).

When you say to “add a fresh disk” - you just mean to add a resource to a CT/VM, right? I trip on the terminology at times, haha. And would it be wise to add the root ZFS pool (such as “holocron”) or to add specific datasets under it (such as "Media or “Documents”)?

I’m intending to create a test dataset under “holocron” to test this all out before I put my real data through any risk, of course.

Ah, I see - this is effectively the same as the first image I shared, but via shell instead of GUI, right?

For my NFS server CT, my config file is as follows currently, with bind-mounts:

arch: amd64
cores: 2
hostname: bridge
memory: 512
mp0: /spynet/NVR,mp=/mnt/NVR,replicate=0,shared=1
mp1: /holocron/Documents,mp=/mnt/Documents,replicate=0,shared=1
mp2: /holocron/Media,mp=/mnt/Media,replicate=0,shared=1
mp3: /holocron/Syncthing,mp=/mnt/Syncthing,replicate=0,shared=1
net0: name=eth0,bridge=vmbr0,firewall=1,gw=192.168.0.1,hwaddr=BC:24:11:62:C2:13,ip=192.168.0.82/24,type=veth
onboot: 1
ostype: debian
rootfs: ctdata:subvol-101-disk-0,size=8G
startup: order=2
swap: 512
lxc.apparmor.profile: unconfined
lxc.cgroup2.devices.allow: a
lxc.cap.drop:

For full context, my list of ZFS pools (yes, I’m a Star Wars nerd):

NAME                                    USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
holocron                               13.1T  7.89T   163K  /holocron
holocron/Documents                     63.7G  7.89T  52.0G  /holocron/Documents
holocron/Media                         12.8T  7.89T  12.8T  /holocron/Media
holocron/Syncthing                      281G  7.89T   153G  /holocron/Syncthing
rpool                                  13.0G   202G   104K  /rpool
rpool/ROOT                             12.9G   202G    96K  /rpool/ROOT
rpool/ROOT/pve-1                       12.9G   202G  12.9G  /
rpool/data                               96K   202G    96K  /rpool/data
rpool/var-lib-vz                        104K   202G   104K  /var/lib/vz
spynet                                 1.46T  2.05T    96K  /spynet
spynet/NVR                             1.46T  2.05T  1.46T  /spynet/NVR
virtualizing                           1.20T   574G   112K  /virtualizing
virtualizing/ISOs                       620M   574G   620M  /virtualizing/ISOs
virtualizing/backup                     263G   574G   263G  /virtualizing/backup
virtualizing/ctdata                    1.71G   574G   104K  /virtualizing/ctdata
virtualizing/ctdata/subvol-100-disk-0  1.32G  6.68G  1.32G  /virtualizing/ctdata/subvol-100-disk-0
virtualizing/ctdata/subvol-101-disk-0   401M  7.61G   401M  /virtualizing/ctdata/subvol-101-disk-0
virtualizing/templates                  120M   574G   120M  /virtualizing/templates
virtualizing/vmdata                     958G   574G    96K  /virtualizing/vmdata
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-200-disk-0      3.09M   574G    88K  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-200-disk-1       462G   964G  72.5G  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-201-disk-0      3.11M   574G   108K  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-201-disk-1       407G   964G  17.2G  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-202-disk-0      3.07M   574G    76K  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-202-disk-1      49.2G   606G  16.7G  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-203-disk-0      3.11M   574G   116K  -
virtualizing/vmdata/vm-203-disk-1      39.6G   606G  7.11G  -

So you’re saying to list the relevant four ZFS datasets in there but, instead of as bind-points, as virtual drives (as seen in the “rootfs” line)? Or rather, as “storage backed mount points” from here:

https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Linux_Container#_storage_backed_mount_points

Hopefully I’m on the right track!

Hahaha I will not be measuring my power draw, don’t need a reason for my wife to question my absurd tech antics. xD

Oh I didn’t think the gap window is a bug - I was just acknowledging it, and I’m OK with it.

Definitely some ideas one day for the future but with my current time, architecture, and folks depending on certain services (and my own sanity with the many months I already spent on this), not really looking to re-do anything or wipe drives.

Just want to make the best of my ZFS situation for now - I know it can’t do everything that Ceph and GlusterFS can do.

Yeah sounds cool, but will likely need to be a project for a successor series of servers one day, given other limitations I have with switches, rack space (and money, haha).

Hmm, alright - yeah my other nodes have the same ZFS pools already made.

For adding a virtual drive, you mean going to this section, and choosing “Add: Hard Disk” then selecting whatever ZFS pool I would have added under the prior screenshot, under the highlighted red “Storage” box? Will the VM “see” the data already in that pool if it is attached to it like this?

Sorry for my ignorance - I’m a little confused by the “storagename:dataset” thing you mentioned?

And for another dumb question - when you say “copy the data into a regularly made virtual drive on the guest” - how is this different exactly?

One other thing comes to mind - instead of adding the ZFS pools to the VMs, what if I added them to my CT that runs an NFS server, via Mount Point (GUI) instead of the bind-mount way I currently have? Of course, I would need to add my existing ZFS pools to the Datacenter “Storage” section in the same way as previous discussed (with the weird content categories).

Gotcha - I’ll keep that in mind for maybe one day down the road. For now I’m limited in PCIe bandwidth lanes on the NICs I have in (10Gb internal networking) and zero open ports on my switches. :(

Well I guess it’s not too important the end-goal haha. I just have 3 redundant nodes with redundant pools in a cluster. The money’s been spent and the nodes have already been setup. A big part of it was just learning (I work in IT), another part of it is just “active backup” structure of 3 decentralized nodes.

Yep that’s also been a concern of mine - I don’t have replication coming from the other nodes as well.

When you say let PVE manage all of the replication - I guess that’s what the main focus of this post is - how? I have those ZFS data pools that are currently just bind-mounted to two CTs, with the VMs mapping to them via NFS (one CT being an NFS server). It’s my understanding that bind-mounted items aren’t supported to be replicated alongside the CTs to which they are attached.

Is there some other, better way to attach them? This is where that italics part comes in - can I just “Add Storage” for these pools and thenadd them via GUI to attach to CTs or VMs, even though they don’t fit those content categories?

I think so, but I already have a great deal of data stored on my existing pools - and I wanted the benefits of ZFS. Additionally, it’s my understanding that Ceph isn’t ideal unless you have a number of additional node-to-node direct connections - I don’t have this - insufficient PCIe slots in each node for additional NICs.

But thanks for flagging - in my original post(s) elsewhere I mentioned in the title that I was seeking to avoid Ceph and GlusterFS, and forgot to mention that here. 🙃

Hmm, O.K., so you do that part I mentioned in italics? This section under Datacenter, to add those ZFS pools storing data? And then attach them to a VM via GUI?

If I’m understanding correctly, what “Content” selection do you choose for your data files in such pools?

Former USAF JAG here (lawyer). I was always a tech geek, undergrad major was in MIS actually, but I didn’t enjoy coding. Always ran Plex on the side, built my own computers, etc. Grew up with my Dad using Linux everywhere (I found this annoying as I just wanted to play games on Windows).

I didn’t enjoy law (surprise!). I was disillusioned with the criminal justice system too. Quit the law in 2020. Then suddenly had quality time by global happenstance to rethink my life path.

I work in IT now. Restarted at the bottom of a new career but I’m in deep nerd territory now - Proxmox servers, Home Assistant, networks with VLANs, OPNsense router, 22U server rack, Linux as my daily driver, etc.

Much happier now.