From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 33D38727AE for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:16:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2499B2F666 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:16:07 +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 id AA3F02F638 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:16:06 +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 80F924051A for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:16:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 12:16:05 +0200 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Stefan Reiter Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <20210702121605.21bf837c@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210624123013.2420174-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> References: <20210624123013.2420174-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.547 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 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 installer] zfs: allow RAID0 with different-sized disks 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:16:37 -0000 Thanks for the patch! checked the git-log when and how this got introduced in the first place and it's been like that since zfs raid configuration was introduced... I think the change makes sense - in addition to the case of RAID0 with different sizes, it would also prevent RAID10 with the mirror pairs having different size (2x 15G and 2x 10G in my tests) - which I also can imagine is a use-case for some users Tested-by: Stoiko Ivanov Reviewed-by: Stoiko Ivanov On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 14:30:13 +0200 Stefan Reiter wrote: > zfs_mirror_size_check is already called in get_zfs_raid_setup when > necessary, so don't call it unconditionally, as this will cause a > false-positive error on RAID0 devices (where size mismatches are fine). > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter > --- > proxinstall | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/proxinstall b/proxinstall > index a6176d2..213486a 100755 > --- a/proxinstall > +++ b/proxinstall > @@ -1426,8 +1426,6 @@ sub extract_data { > my ($size, $osdev, $efidev) = > partition_bootable_disk($devname, $config_options->{hdsize}, 'BF01'); > > - zfs_mirror_size_check($disksize, $size) if $disksize; > - > push @$bootdevinfo, { > esp => $efidev, > devname => $devname,