Thanks Moritz for all the support at first
Yes UCS is virtuall Machine, not Container
Proxmox is serving NFS because of ZFS Advantages
exports
/rpool/data/vm-200-archiv 192.168.115.251(rw,sync)
/rpool/data/vm-200-files 192.168.115.251(rw,async)
/rpool/data/vm-200-bh 192.168.115.251(rw,sync)
/rpool/data/vm-200-transfer 192.168.115.251(rw,sync)#
fstab
192.168.115.252:/rpool/data/vm-200-files /mnt/Daten nfs rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,intr
192.168.115.252:/rpool/data/vm-200-bh /mnt/Buchhaltung nfs rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,intr
192.168.115.252:/rpool/data/vm-200-archiv /mnt/Archiv nfs rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,intr
192.168.115.252:/rpool/data/vm-200-transfer /mnt/Transfer nfs rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,intr
The bad Performance only occurs if a Windows Application is opening the same File
Good Performance i have at
SMB shared Files via UCS stored in virtual Disk
SMB shared File via UCS stored on Proxmox via NFS
SMB shared File via Proxmox stored on ZFS Dataset
So I don´t have an idea why the Performance is so pure if not Explorer is accessing the File.
Any Idea would be welcome
It simply makes sense to store the Files in ZFS, not virtual Disk on ZFS