From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1136E1FF16E for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:20:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C82F03204D; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:20:54 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:20:51 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Daniel Kral" From: "Christoph Heiss" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1 References: <20250110170040.201474-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250110170040.201474-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.030 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] [RFC PATCH 1/2] install: btrfs: fix raid level falling back to single mode 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: > From a user's perspective, the BTRFS single mode has been removed since > d85180e ("tui: rename raid levels 0/1 to align with GUI installer"). The > user can now only select at least the "RAID0" level, but if a user > selects any raid level with only one disk configured on the system, > BTRFS will be setup in 'single' mode instead of the chosen raid level. > > The TUI installer has a separate check for this, but the GUI installer > as well as the auto installer will silently fallback to single mode, > which could be confusing for and unwanted by the user. > > Therefore, remove the BTRFS single mode from being selected when > configuring disks in the GUI installer and during the installation in > general, which makes the auto installer fail if the wrong amount of > disks are selected for the specified raid level. This makes btrfs' raid > disk count validation align with the one from zfs. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral Tested this patch with GUI, TUI and auto installer, whether they all now properly reject invalid configurations for each RAID mode. I.e. for RAID0 <1 disks, RAID1 <2 disks and RAID10 <4 disks. Tested each also with exactly one disk, of course. Please consider this patch: Tested-by: Christoph Heiss Reviewed-by: Christoph Heiss FWIW and completeness: `proxmox-auto-install-assistant validate-answer` does not (yet) check the filesystem configuration, but the auto-installer will still fail on invalid configuration as expected. Michael is working on improving the former, tho. > --- > > Discussion > > BTRFS didn't allow a single-disk RAID0 configuration before kernel 5.15 > and AFAIK also silently used the single profile for that case, but this > has changed since then. > > If we want users to still be able to create a BTRFS filesystem in single > mode (which seems very reasonable), I can do a v2 or followup to add a > "btrfs (single)" entry to the disk setup. I think it's fine as it currently is, i.e. we don't really need the extra single mode. Since it is supported to create single-disk RAID0 setups and doesn't result in a degraded state or similar, it is nice to have a) the simplicity of having one entry/filesystem type less and b) being consistent with the ZFS side of things on that matter. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel