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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C579D68D; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:28:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 641C38AAB; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:27:55 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:27:53 +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 9A7E543A2C; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:27:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:27:52 +0100 (CET) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE user list , Jan Vlach Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <850679507.1460.1700810872653@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <969ADBB0-ACE4-4136-AAB5-DC02802A4CA8@volny.cz> References: <6b9a818d-1256-435e-bce3-c3a8dbcd6671@proxmox.com> <969ADBB0-ACE4-4136-AAB5-DC02802A4CA8@volny.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.065 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. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PVE-User] Proxmox VE 8.1 released! 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: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:28:25 -0000 > Jan Vlach hat am 23.11.2023 23:35 CET geschrieben: > > > Hello Martin, > > I'm sorry for stupid question, but I don't quite follow what the OpenZFS 2.2.0 with "the most important bugfixes from 2.2.1" means. > > there is issue 15526 (https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/15526 ) in openzfs that enables block cloning feature by default and that on linux "eats" data. > > OpenZFS 2.2.1 specifically switches the block cloning on by default to off by default and nothing else. ( https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/479dca51c66a731e637bd2d4f9bba01a05f9ac9f ) > > So is the code at 2.2.0 (toxic) eating data by default or at 2.2.1 where block cloning is disabled by default and therefore safe? > > Thank you for clarification, > JV we cherry-picked the relevant patches from 2.2.1, but it seems there is now new information that block cloning just made the bug easier to trigger but was not actually the cause. we'll include any follow-up fixes promptly after testing, as usual. https://git.proxmox.com/?p=zfsonlinux.git;a=commit;h=96c807af63f70dc930328e5801659a5bd40e6d47