From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A92731FF165 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:00:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F3914E7B; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:00:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <0472416b-6e05-4793-876f-cc679fccf70f@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:00:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Fabio Fantoni <fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250110170040.201474-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250110170040.201474-2-d.kral@proxmox.com> <0999b2e1-8b8b-4baf-84d6-32251a675338@m2r.biz> Content-Language: en-US From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <0999b2e1-8b8b-4baf-84d6-32251a675338@m2r.biz> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.241 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 KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years 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] [RFC PATCH 2/2] common: btrfs: lower minimum amount of disks for raid10 to 2 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 1/13/25 13:24, Fabio Fantoni wrote: > btrfs profiles work differently but other hardware or software raids, > many users may not inform themselves well beforehand but even in the > case of informed users even if technically now btrfs allows lower limits > with the creation of raid 0 (and raid10) I think it would be better to > keep them at the base at the creation and then it must be the user who > consciously makes any subsequent conversions. Hm, I'm still unsure about this, because AFAIK we already allow creating ZFS RAID0 with a single disk, which technically also isn't a "real" RAID0 setup itself. But fair point for RAID10, it could be irritating for users to have a discrepancy between the minimum disk amount of ZFS and BTRFS RAID10 and it'd be a bit harder to communicate that in a understandable manner. > > regarding btrfs profiles at creation, one thing that could be useful is > to always put duplicate metadata (dup with single disk or raid 1 in the > case of raid0), if you don't want it by default maybe put it as an > additional option, and if you don't want that either at least add it to > the documentation (as a suggestion if you want greater resilience of the > filesystem without consuming excessive space) Currently, the installer creates the BTRFS filesystem with the data and metadata both using the same profile. I also think it could be valuable to have an "advanced" option, which allows to set a separate profile for the metadata. Feel free to send either a RFC for it (even if I can't tell you whether it will be accepted as it adds some complexity to the fs setup) or create a Bugzilla so also other users and developers can discuss it. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel