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 307E0A13EC for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:45:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BB9E21BAD8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:44:36 +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 13:44:36 +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 C8879452E7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:44:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49511c23-e5f8-4d09-d892-ff7ec4eeb44d@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:44:34 +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: 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> From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <6b906c73-1c4d-d29a-ff16-b7c0cf8a692d@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 - 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 11:45:07 -0000 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.