From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EC491FF187 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:15:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AA35C45C; Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:15:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:15:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" References: <7835c5768097161a8bdb53890c15ad3e4d93c7ca.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <7835c5768097161a8bdb53890c15ad3e4d93c7ca.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1760973322607 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.022 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 V3 pve-storage] lvm: use blkdiscard instead cstream to saferemove drive 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" Am 20.10.25 um 4:37 PM schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: >> >> "There are no restrictions when using blkdiscard -z, although >> blkdiscard performs roughly the same as dd if the storage does not >> support write same." > >>> At a glance, the implementation of blkdiscard doesn't seem to have a >>> fallback and will just exit with error if the BLKZEROOUT ioctl() >>> fails: >>> https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux/blob/stable/v2.41/sys- >>> utils/blkdiscard.c#L303 > > Thanks to have looked at it! > > So I'll readd the cstream as fallback to be sure && keep > saferemove_throughput too ? Even if the kernel does have a fallback (see my other mail), this is the safe way to go about it, since the kernel will just write zeroes full speed. Otherwise, we risk breaking somebody's setup. We can think about dropping it for PVE 10. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel