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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16B9371DAC for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:03:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 046F01F363 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:03:15 +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 D481B1F357 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:03:13 +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 DC55443057; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:03:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <a6f4a43c-538b-3bf6-96ab-ad18be008403@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:03:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.0 To: Mark Schouten <mark@tuxis.nl>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <em22ccb14f-16b5-47c1-8104-2661ed46dcfe@96b102e8.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <em22ccb14f-16b5-47c1-8104-2661ed46dcfe@96b102e8.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.100 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 -0.001 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] Create a ZFS filesystem upon datastore creation X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:03:45 -0000 On 6/27/22 10:20, Mark Schouten wrote: > Hi, > > We run a few PBS servers with a lot of datastores, ZFS based. While PBS can create zpools, it > currently cannot create a ZFS datastore when you create a datastore via the API. > > Currently we have a script to create users and datastores and with the corresponding ZFS filesystem: > 1: Create PBS user > 2: Create ZFS filesystem for this user (we set the quotum here) > 3: Create a ZFS filesystem for this datastore, inside the users filesystem > 4: Create the datastore > > As we’re going to implement PBS-as-a-service into our portal, I would like to know if it’s feasable > to make the API create a filesystem when you create a datastore, or is the general feeling that this > should not be inside PBS’ scope? > > Regards, > > — > Mark Schouten, CTO > Tuxis B.V. > mark@tuxis.nl > Hi, imo is that the wrong point for such things, since the datastore creation only takes an (arbitrary) path, which has really nothing to do with the underlying filesystem. we already have a zpool creation in the api/gui, maybe we could extend that to also be able to create (and destroy?) zfs fs? i think we don't want pbs to become a fs/partition manager though ;) kind regards