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 389D81FF165 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:59:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F11A52A72E; Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:59:00 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yourcmc.ru; s=mail; t=1756335500; bh=qP0UvwuG3PiyqlETACYiDatW1l2hdy2Rjw/Y7jVtIhU=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RbeK2+tPaJNykhnfU5X+OBFRMLaB9+6I/p6XFjIKnxtQOPJA3VZ0E3q+tp7pfY3qj 6ytBwMtdhSjPJ3v7hnBR7Ag3swmAihR1ahdL+kcIZ6p8Xfr4uNiRq/0hYZoMhkxApk oVPkYEkEpcRdh82Xbi7BYvJ3bgFhAWUgF4C92z8nnioG1gwT8/TE+0P1u1LhPsdKug puWvIt4GteruPObKDALBO4n4mR5R1jvJEskjIILdEixeEVxaHH5jn195sl/tPhT0RO zCQvvmCJ4lIlAx1Zj/mTewT53FhPafeRWvecmGXQEfNdoiOnXHdXvHRovylDrH4kcV CUsvkXxAgmOAA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:58:20 +0000 X-Mailer: RainLoop/1.14.0 From: vitalif@yourcmc.ru Message-ID: To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Proxmox VE development discussion" In-Reply-To: <1ff9fa45-752d-4935-a8b7-993096413749@proxmox.com> References: <1ff9fa45-752d-4935-a8b7-993096413749@proxmox.com> <45854bb6f7e2a5059e5b5472f85c64cc@yourcmc.ru> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.949 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [yourcmc.ru] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] Vitastor block driver plugin 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Hi Thomas, Thanks for your answer! Regarding the "bus factor", I totally understand your concerns, but I guess it's more about popularity than about the number of developers. I mean if you take a startup with 10-20 devs it may run out of investor money and become abandoned as well as if there is only 1 developer. And I'd of course appreciate more popularity and if more people joined my project :) but after all, opensource is about indie developers too, not only about companies? So I don't think it should be a blocker. Vitastor has users, some of them use Proxmox by the way, there's also a partner company in Russia which offers commercial support for it. C++ can be different :) the C++ I use is more like "C with classes" than modern idiomatic C++... I try to avoid complex features of the language as well as complex external libraries. So yeah, try to evaluate it when you have spare time :) it's like 10x faster in terms of latency, has very similar tooling to ceph and PVE seems to be very easy to use Vitastor with. Also you're the only system which doesn't have hardcode and thus doesn't require patching core to install a 3rdparty block driver! It's really cool. OpenNebula, OpenStack, oVirt all require patches, both to their core and to libvirt. I really appreciate your libvirt-free approach. :) I thought about upstreaming the QEMU driver, but then the first thing that I have to solve is getting my client library packaged in at least one of distros used in their CI: alpine, ubuntu, debian, fedora, centos or opensuse. Then they can consider accepting the driver. It seems I have to try to do it, at least at some point. :) So to sum it up, at the moment it's perfectly fine for me if you just add that 1 line with vitastor options in that list. :-) By the way, why did you add it in the first place? I thought these options could only contain "trusted" values coming from PVE code anyway? Or do some drivers really require filtering? -- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel