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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C6781FF16F
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:26:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8BB1A678F;
	Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:27:06 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:26:34 +0200
Message-Id: <D9IZA7J9KNYR.3C1OYIL1SLJXZ@proxmox.com>
From: "Christoph Heiss" <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1
References: <20250422162739.255641-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <20250422162739.255641-2-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <D9I8GCXGQT09.YC6FHBEIIQTE@proxmox.com>
 <5c5a193d-7aa7-41e1-95cc-b8d6d6b4c6cf@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c5a193d-7aa7-41e1-95cc-b8d6d6b4c6cf@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.029 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
 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 pve-installer 1/6] auto: add early answer
 file sanity check for RAID configurations
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>
Cc: 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>

>> 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,

Yep, definitely. I also like to err on the side of caution and rather
allow more than what might be technical feasible and/or allowed - latter
especially w.r.t. network settings.

I'd then just lower it to the actual allowed minimum as mentioned above,
doesn't hurt in any case :^)

> 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