From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADD699FF4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:37:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A3C2C26EB8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:37:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3410026EAD
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:37:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 032D442DE8;
 Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:37:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4655fb6d-187d-4af4-d9b0-ed4f196cbb70@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:37:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/100.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20220408101416.165312-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220408101416.165312-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.054 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.857 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager 0/4] Ceph add basic erasure code pool
 mgmt support
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:37:36 -0000

sent some replies to the relevant parts,

all in all seems to work ok (nothing major functionally)
regarding cli, ecprofile is fine imo, i don't think we have to write out
'erasure-code-profile' in our cli (should be clear from context)

the only thing we might want to do is to (optionally?) create an ec profile on the fly
when creating a pool by giving k/m directly there?

i guess you did not do it because we already must expose the profile management
since it does not get auto cleaned up? (though could we do that on pool delete?)

we could save the whole ec profile management by always explicitly creating a new one
for each ecpool we create, so the cleanup 'should' work on pool delete.
(that will run into an error anyway if it's still used)