From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D3FD1FF16E for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:57:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 30219317D5; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:57:55 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:57:52 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Daniel Kral" From: "Christoph Heiss" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1 References: <20250110170040.201474-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250110170040.201474-2-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250110170040.201474-2-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.220 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 KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years 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] [RFC PATCH 2/2] common: btrfs: lower minimum amount of disks for raid10 to 2 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Fri Jan 10, 2025 at 6:00 PM CET, Daniel Kral wrote: > As the installer allows single-disk RAID0 configurations and BTRFS > allows to create a filesystem with the RAID10 profile with only two > disks since kernel version 5.15 [0], lower the minimum amount of disks > the installer requires for a BTRFS RAID10 setup. > > The motiviation for this is to allow users to create a BTRFS RAID10 > configuration even though they do not have the necessary disks ready at > setup time itself without needing to convert the profile afterwards. Thinking about it, it does not really makes that much sense to allow users to create degraded RAIDs - that just asks for all sorts of troubles down the road in my book. ZFS does not allow it either (or supports it AFAIK), for a good reason. So IMHO we should not allow it with Btrfs as well. *Especially* since Btrfs allows one to later on add more devices to a filesystem and rebalance it to different profiles, e.g. from a RAID1 to a RAID10 using # btrfs balance start -mconvert=raid10 -dconvert=raid10 `-d` and `-m` of course depending on whether you'd want data block and/or metadata chunks to be rebalanced. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel