From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4D11FF16F for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:32:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 007F68090; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:32:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Christoph Heiss References: <20250422162739.255641-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <20250422162739.255641-2-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <5c5a193d-7aa7-41e1-95cc-b8d6d6b4c6cf@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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] [PATCH pve-installer 1/6] auto: add early answer file sanity check for RAID configurations X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 4/29/25 10:26, Christoph Heiss wrote: >>> ZFS actually lets one create RAIDZ{1,2,3} pools with 2, 3 and 4 disks, >>> respectively. While maybe not really _that_ practical for real-world >>> usecases (starting with the overhead), do we want to still allow it? >> >> I personally don't like putting too many constraints on what users can >> do. Even if not every setting is practical, I think the installer should >> allow them as long as they don't mean that the whole installation is >> going to crash halfway through, > > Yep, definitely. I also like to err on the side of caution and rather > allow more than what might be technical feasible and/or allowed - latter > especially w.r.t. network settings. > > I'd then just lower it to the actual allowed minimum as mentioned above, > doesn't hurt in any case :^) I think I'd prefer doing this in a separate series, though. Changes would have to be made in the installer, the UI (there's a check there as well when creating a ZFS pool) and, IMO, also PBS. There are checks in PBS as well and I don't think it's a good idea to have diverging behavior between PVE and PBS about what is and isn't allowed w.r.t. ZFS RAID setups. > >> especially if manually creating pools >> like that would work. Maybe someone else has an opinion on this and can >> weigh in, though. In any case, thanks for the suggestion! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel