public inbox for pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael Köppl" <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
To: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-installer 1/6] auto: add early answer file sanity check for RAID configurations
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:31:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c5a193d-7aa7-41e1-95cc-b8d6d6b4c6cf@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D9I8GCXGQT09.YC6FHBEIIQTE@proxmox.com>

On 4/28/25 13:25, Christoph Heiss wrote:
> On Tue Apr 22, 2025 at 6:27 PM CEST, Michael Köppl wrote:
>> [..]
>> +pub fn verify_disks_settings(answer: &Answer) -> Result<()> {
>> +    if let DiskSelection::Selection(selection) = &answer.disks.disk_selection {
>> +        let min_disks = answer.disks.fs_type.get_min_disks();
>> +        if selection.len() < min_disks {
>> +            bail!(
>> +                "{} requires at least {} disks",
>> +                answer.disks.fs_type,
>> +                min_disks
>> +            );
>> +        }
>> +    }
> 
> Perhaps another, pretty simple but useful check here would be if all
> disks are unique, i.e. that there are no duplicates in the list?

Good idea, I'll add that for the v2. Thanks!

> 
>> [..]
>> diff --git a/proxmox-installer-common/src/options.rs b/proxmox-installer-common/src/options.rs
>> index 9cc4ee0..9271b8b 100644
>> --- a/proxmox-installer-common/src/options.rs
>> +++ b/proxmox-installer-common/src/options.rs
>> @@ -48,6 +58,19 @@ pub enum ZfsRaidLevel {
>>       RaidZ3,
>>   }
>>
>> +impl ZfsRaidLevel {
>> +    pub fn get_min_disks(&self) -> usize {
>> +        match self {
>> +            ZfsRaidLevel::Raid0 => 1,
>> +            ZfsRaidLevel::Raid1 => 2,
>> +            ZfsRaidLevel::Raid10 => 4,
>> +            ZfsRaidLevel::RaidZ => 3,
>> +            ZfsRaidLevel::RaidZ2 => 4,
>> +            ZfsRaidLevel::RaidZ3 => 5,
> 
> 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, 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

  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-28 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-22 16:27 [pve-devel] [PATCH installer 0/6] add early disk and network sanity checks Michael Köppl
2025-04-22 16:27 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-installer 1/6] auto: add early answer file sanity check for RAID configurations Michael Köppl
2025-04-28 11:25   ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-28 14:31     ` Michael Köppl [this message]
2025-04-29  8:26       ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-29  9:32         ` Michael Köppl
2025-04-29  9:40           ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-22 16:27 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-installer 2/6] common: use get_min_disks as single source of truth for RAID config checks Michael Köppl
2025-04-28 11:48   ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-28 15:36     ` Michael Köppl
2025-04-22 16:27 ` [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH pve-installer 3/6] close #5887: add sanity check for LVM swapsize and maxroot Michael Köppl
2025-04-28 12:00   ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-29 11:30     ` Michael Köppl
2025-04-22 16:27 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-installer 4/6] run rustfmt Michael Köppl
2025-04-23 11:56   ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-25 12:22     ` Michael Köppl
2025-04-22 16:27 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-installer 5/6] common: add more descriptive errors for invalid network configs Michael Köppl
2025-04-28 12:20   ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-22 16:27 ` [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH pve-installer 6/6] closes #5757: common: add checks for valid IPv4 address within subnet Michael Köppl
2025-04-28 10:22   ` Christoph Heiss
2025-04-28 14:20     ` Michael Köppl
2025-04-28 12:25 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH installer 0/6] add early disk and network sanity checks Christoph Heiss
2025-04-29 14:14   ` Michael Köppl

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5c5a193d-7aa7-41e1-95cc-b8d6d6b4c6cf@proxmox.com \
    --to=m.koeppl@proxmox.com \
    --cc=c.heiss@proxmox.com \
    --cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Service provided by Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH | Privacy | Legal