From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 DA9C2A1493 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:26:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B3D3C1C1C4 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:26:05 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:26:04 +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 D0AC745315 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:26:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0f51441e-b070-1da6-1ca2-81f798bfd6b6@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:26:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230614112853.1560191-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <6b906c73-1c4d-d29a-ff16-b7c0cf8a692d@proxmox.com> <49511c23-e5f8-4d09-d892-ff7ec4eeb44d@proxmox.com> <ebd3a023-34d8-b3be-e8e8-dda120ec378c@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <ebd3a023-34d8-b3be-e8e8-dda120ec378c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.041 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.098 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] Revert "workaround zfs create -V error for unaligned sizes" 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, 14 Jun 2023 12:26:35 -0000 On 6/14/23 14:13, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 14.06.23 um 13:44 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> On 6/14/23 13:38, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Am 14/06/2023 um 13:28 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >>>> This reverts commit cdef3abb25984c369571626b38f97f92a0a2fd15. >>>> >>>> The bug should be fixed by now [0]. The reproducer doesn't cause any >>>> issues in my tests. >>>> >>>> [0] https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/8541 >>> >>> hmm, torn on this one; 1 MB aligned images sound not to bad for >>> various things, >>> and the extra size is rather negligible most of the time so we can >>> mostly lose >>> here, otoh. it should be callers decision if storage works fine now.. >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> >>>> --- >>>> AFAICT this has an affect on EFI disks which after this revert will be >>>> 528k and not 1M. Similar as if we would store it as a .raw file. >>>> >>> >>> that sounds like it _could_ break stuff.. >>> >>> @fiona: what was the state with local storage migration and those disk >>> size >>> mismatches? Or anything else coming to your mind? >> >> I did a few tests in the meantime. An EFI disk on a directory based >> storage will be 528 K and can be moved to a ZFS storage with this patch. >> Without it, it will fail, similar to RBD which needs a 1M min size IIRC. > > Yes, drive mirror will fail if the source and target volume don't have > the exact same size: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3227 > so this would be an improvement. Although the proper fix for that bug > would need to be made in drive mirror (e.g. by adding an option to allow > larger target image). > > Offline storage export/import for ZFS is currently limited to ZFS<->ZFS > anyways. > > I'm not aware of any issues, but the alignment has been there for a > while now ;) > > There's also similar padding in volume_resize(). Does ZFS also round up > automatically there now or do we need to keep that? Doesn't look like it: zfs create tank01/sizetest -V 35K zfs set volsize=73K tank01/sizetest cannot set property for 'tank01/sizetest': 'volsize' must be a multiple of volume block size (8K) With that in mind, it is probably better to let things be as they are?