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 7F4D11FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:32:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 007F68090;
Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b0ed3d50-0204-4c66-88ed-a834fc917db6@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:32:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
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>
<D9IZA7J9KNYR.3C1OYIL1SLJXZ@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= <m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9IZA7J9KNYR.3C1OYIL1SLJXZ@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.000 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 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 4/29/25 10:26, Christoph Heiss wrote:
>>> 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 :^)
I think I'd prefer doing this in a separate series, though. Changes
would have to be made in the installer, the UI (there's a check there as
well when creating a ZFS pool) and, IMO, also PBS. There are checks in
PBS as well and I don't think it's a good idea to have diverging
behavior between PVE and PBS about what is and isn't allowed w.r.t. ZFS
RAID setups.
>
>> 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