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 830761FF168
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:21:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AB72C55E1;
Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:21:37 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 17:21:34 +0100
Message-Id: <D87MBE1EII5T.2JJW55NCEFYZ2@proxmox.com>
Cc: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
From: "Shannon Sterz" <s.sterz@proxmox.com>
To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1-0-g2ecb8770224a-dirty
References: <20250304154101.3-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
<20250304154101.3-2-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250304154101.3-2-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.015 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
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] [PATCH docs 1/7] system-requirements: revise
subchapter and provide more details
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Tue Mar 4, 2025 at 4:40 PM CET, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
> ---
> pve-system-requirements.adoc | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/pve-system-requirements.adoc b/pve-system-requirements.adoc
> index 8a982a8..82d9be5 100644
> --- a/pve-system-requirements.adoc
> +++ b/pve-system-requirements.adoc
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> +[[system_requirements]]
> System Requirements
> -------------------
> ifdef::wiki[]
> @@ -6,7 +7,8 @@ endif::wiki[]
>
> We recommend using high quality server hardware, when running {pve} in
> production. To further decrease the impact of a failed host, you can run {pve} in
> -a cluster with highly available (HA) virtual machines and containers.
> +a cluster with xref:chapter_ha_manager[highly available (HA)] virtual
> +machines and containers.
>
> {pve} can use local storage (DAS), SAN, NAS, and distributed storage like Ceph
> RBD. For details see xref:chapter_storage[chapter storage].
> @@ -26,7 +28,9 @@ used in production.
>
> * Hard drive
>
> -* One network card (NIC)
> +* One network card (NIC), used for fetching system updates and access
> +via xref:chapter_gui[web interface], `ssh` or
> +link:api-viewer/index.html[{pve} API]
>
>
> [[install_recommended_requirements]]
> @@ -39,15 +43,22 @@ Recommended System Requirements
> guests. For Ceph and ZFS, additional memory is required; approximately 1GB of
> memory for every TB of used storage.
>
> -* Fast and redundant storage, best results are achieved with SSDs.
> +* Fast and redundant storage, best results are achieved with SSDs. Do
> + not use SD cards or USB flash drives, as these have a lower
> + durability and performance.
>
> -* OS storage: Use a hardware RAID with battery protected write cache (``BBU'')
> - or non-RAID with ZFS (optional SSD for ZIL).
> +* OS storage:
> +** An HBA with a redundant xref:chapter_zfs[ZFS] RAID level. If not
> + using fast enterprise SSDs with power-loss protection, optionally
i think this would read better if it said:
If you are not using fast..., you can optionally add one...
> + add one for use as xref:sysadmin_zfs_add_cache_and_log_dev[SLOG].
> +** Or a hardware RAID controller with battery-backed write cache (BBU)
> + and not ZFS, as the combination can lead to data loss.
yes, but there are RAID controllers that can be switched to HBA mode,
this would probably make this longer than it'd need to be
>
> * VM storage:
> -** For local storage, use either a hardware RAID with battery backed write cache
> - (BBU) or non-RAID for ZFS and Ceph. Neither ZFS nor Ceph are compatible with a
> - hardware RAID controller.
> +** For local storage, the same recommendations apply as for OS
> + storage. However, if a hardware RAID controller is used, in
> + addition to ZFS, xref:chapter_pveceph[Ceph] is also incompatible
> + with it.
a) this is mention before and b) this would probably read better:
However, using ZFS on top of a hardware RAID controller is not
compatible, unless the controller supports an HBA-mode or similar.
> ** Shared and distributed storage is possible.
> ** SSDs with Power-Loss-Protection (PLP) are recommended for good performance.
> Using consumer SSDs is discouraged.
> @@ -75,7 +86,7 @@ browsers:
>
> * Firefox, a release from the current year, or the latest Extended Support Release
> * Chrome, a release from the current year
> -* Microsoft's currently supported version of Edge
> +* Edge, Microsoft's currently supported release
why keep the "Microsoft" here at all, could just be "the currently" or
similar
> * Safari, a release from the current year
>
> When accessed from a mobile device, {pve} will show a lightweight, touch-based
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel