From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 441D91FF135 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8ADB521407; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:46:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:46:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH docs 2/2] pvesm: update features for LVM,iSCSI,FC,SAS To: Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20260702110856.2205894-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20260702110856.2205894-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782992754700 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: AXDFT2IJMG6JCNSXR6WUE2UABEPWZOQN X-Message-ID-Hash: AXDFT2IJMG6JCNSXR6WUE2UABEPWZOQN X-MailFrom: a.lauterer@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2026-07-02 13:37, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > Aaron Lauterer writes: > >> And reword the footnotes to mention the multipath guide that show to set >> it up with LVM on top in detail. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer >> --- >> pvesm.adoc | 17 +++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/pvesm.adoc b/pvesm.adoc >> index b43ca42..5bd24b2 100644 >> --- a/pvesm.adoc >> +++ b/pvesm.adoc >> @@ -77,9 +77,9 @@ nodes that can be accessed as RBD (RADOS Block Device). >> |CephFS |cephfs |file |yes |yes |yes >> |LVM |lvm |block |no^3^ |yes^4^ |yes >> |LVM-thin |lvmthin |block |no |yes |yes >> -|iSCSI/kernel |iscsi |block |yes |no |yes >> -|iSCSI/libiscsi |iscsidirect |block |yes |no |yes >> -|FC/SAS |native^6^ |block |yes |yes^4^ |yes >> +|iSCSI/kernel |iscsi |block |yes^3^|yes^4^ |yes >> +|iSCSI/libiscsi |iscsidirect |block |yes^3^|yes^4^ |yes > > Technically, neither iSCSI storage plugin supports snapshots, what > supports snapshots is a LVM storage on top of a iSCSI block device. I > would personally keep the `no` and add a footnote saying that it is > possible to have snapshots on a LVM storage with savc on top of the > iSCSI storage. Which is why I framed the footnotes to emphasize that multipathing + LVM is needed. And realistically, that combination is the only way the vast majority of our users are using shared block storage. I see it as a "full package" that needs to be configured before you can actually use the whole stack as shared storage. FC/SAS/iSCSI alone without LVM is rather useless, except for maybe very esoteric use cases. We would rather not give the wrong impression that it is not possible for someone who very briefly takes a glimpse at the table.