From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0009F93A40 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:03:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C96E633D17 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:03:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:03:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 85AF4447A0 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:03:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:03:04 +0100 From: Christoph Heiss To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <47metnkmqv7pgjrg3flzaue5trtiuajyib433l6lkylju2seel@7i5qjlnur7ki> References: <20231222105244.715015-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <222f82a1-64f2-4706-a7d2-08095e2866e2@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <222f82a1-64f2-4706-a7d2-08095e2866e2@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.047 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [github.io, options.rs] URIBL_SBL_A 0.1 Contains URL's A record listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [185.199.108.153, 185.199.109.153, 185.199.110.153, 185.199.111.153] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] applied: [RFC PATCH installer] proxinstall, common: remove deprecated fletcher2 as zfs checksum algorithm 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 13:03:37 -0000 On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:17:57PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 22/12/2023 um 11:52 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > > Fletcher-2 has long been deprecated and should not be used anymore > > [0][1], so we probably should not offer it anymore too. It's been > > deprecated since at least over 3 years, beyond that it's hard to find an > > exact date. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Heiss > > > > [0] https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Basic%20Concepts/Checksums.html#checksum-algorithms > > [1] https://people.freebsd.org/~asomers/fletcher.pdf > > please keep the git-trailes, like your S-o-b, always at the bottom. > References like these above are part of the commit message, not the > Developer Certificate of Origin S-o-b or patch meta stuff like R-b > or T-b trailers. Oh right, sorry for that. > > > --- > > Sending this as RFC since it might warrant some discussions. > > > > While digging into this a bit more, I reckon we should remove 'off' as > > an option too. It's considered an "extraordinarily bad idea" [2] (for to > > pretty obvious reason) and nobody should ever use it. > > > > Might be a good idea, just so that users simply disable checksum "for > > performance reasons" without knowing about the implications of this. > > yeah, would make sense, especially as anybody can still disable those > afterwards using the `zfs` CLI tool, for whatever reason that may be. > > The alternative would be either showing a hint if `off` is selected, > or change the combobox entry label of it to something like: > `off (NOT recommended)` > > But just to mention all options, I'm fine with this being dropped, > if lots of users complain with somewhat reasonable justification then > we could always re-add it with aforementioned hint. Sounds good. I'd then prefer to just drop it as well, since setting it to "off" is definitely something that should only be done with _very_ good reasoning anyway. I'll send a patch. > > > [2] https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Basic%20Concepts/Checksums.html#disabling-checksums > > > > proxinstall | 2 +- > > proxmox-installer-common/src/options.rs | 3 +-- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > applied, thanks!