From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-user-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72D821FF13F
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:29:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9560484C;
	Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:29:11 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=psg.com;
	s=rgnet-mail; t=1773340100;
	bh=KlM22A0cGaClNHQQvbDFhcOwoQG3JY9+399qNBCjKWU=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=o78RqwaUviyBECpDqgR/H3lr/jbs55W/9yxg+++CSlb2Ds8xEkNYgRy/xfyVoWQQ1
	 5b1rCJ+xMCrv5q8ukL/AQyMsCqnR9KJ2t4g9U4NipCCftt5DsGfHihSHxv2s2RRRSv
	 G26ysgspUnged3vKGG2iIue/iJOmzfPhi6Lpr+lJWcUj4nWOPjuxKNXqaf6ReekTxs
	 W3iG30fdVqy3a9M+iUIbrGBIaeIgwKre4JMiv2O4HByH3DYFd7+uHwx1UezCthNse5
	 0IWK7mW5VmozBPHOP9Rl5ipzc7+2I2Z3akOCcZg7eQaSwTd3YSYunZvaiEHik59jXO
	 MC+kYk7xdhWIw==
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:28:20 -0700
Message-ID: <m2v7f0ucl7.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Konold, Martin" <martin.konold@konsec.com>
Subject: Re: Proxmox VE 9.1 Homelab: ZFS, LXC vs VM, Docker Migration advice?
In-Reply-To: <8300987a11c7596a1eef20cd35e74274@konsec.com>
References: 
 <CAPu5L9HKvYbO7gkvvTPb0VQ8sVtz+A71g8OfA0f4zU1_AyfhNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG+yBPSt53TiXELPsfQ359WCFX7uDaxzFUsaHSQk451F+SH24A@mail.gmail.com>
	<c4f1c69f-4a8f-96c5-6390-d7d6e5bb989c@srr.ro>
	<8300987a11c7596a1eef20cd35e74274@konsec.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.2 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                    -0.512 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
	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: VLNCPXGJUG3WVIWQQ3UCFGA6ZBNK5QO5
X-Message-ID-Hash: VLNCPXGJUG3WVIWQQ3UCFGA6ZBNK5QO5
X-MailFrom: randy@psg.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-user@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-user-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-user-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-user-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

> RAID-5 is not suitable for data you care about. Especially discs from
> the same batch tend to die at similar times and rebuilding an array
> puts a lot of additional stress on the hardware.

just to chime in, four patitions across all ssds:
  o efi boot
  o deb / (md0 raid10)
  o swap
  o big zfs raidz2 image pool (we do not believe in networked file
    systems)

randy