-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Describe in the OpenZFS documentation all known data corruption bugs and all other critical bugs and affected OpenZFS versions #11481
Comments
@makhomed let's continue here I'll duplicate your post:
I think it's ok to track it here, no need to change.
I'm a non-native speaker too, but even in this position we can try to contribute to documentation too. We can always polish quality of previous contributions. Didn't want to lecture you here, just wanted to highlight that I'd be glad to review and comment any of your contributions. I've tried to make it easier to contribute when I reworked docs into https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs-docs repo.
Not sure how you compare state of project and it's code stability by absence of some desired docs page. It may be truly handy to have additional info on topic documented, this project is open for contributions. But please, understand that majority of contributors here do it in their spare time, your ultimatums about "maybe it's beta" just demotivates people. It's your right to make your decisions about using this project or not, but please don't make demands. On topic - you can see majority of changes in changelog here https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/releases .
As usual, contributions are welcome. This info can be found in changelog easily. Package maintainers in Linux distributions usually tracks such changes and push new releases and fixes for you. If you build package by yourself - you'll want to track it otherwise. |
@gmelikov George, but this my issue is not related to OpenZFS code base, but only related to OpenZFS documentation. In the GitHub exists function which allow transfer issue from one repository to another: GitHub Docs: Transferring an issue to another repository You have write access to both repositories, openzfs/zfs and openzfs/openzfs-docs this is means, what you can transfer this issue from openzfs/zfs repo to openzfs/openzfs-docs. Can you please transfer this my issue from openzfs/zfs repo to openzfs/openzfs-docs? I feel very uncomfortable using wrong repository for OpenZFS documentation discussions and improvements. May be it is good idea also transfer from openzfs/zfs repo to openzfs/openzfs-docs all other issues related only to OpenZFS documentation and not related to OpenZFS code base at all?
Ok, thank you, reworked docs into https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs-docs repo - is good idea, I think. If I will find some bugs it the OpenZFS documentation - I will open issue in openzfs/openzfs-docs or even write PR, when time permits. I hope Google translate will help me to improve quality of my English.
Sorry, I do not have intent to demotivate OpenZFS developers, because OpenZFS is very good job and it is the best file system in the entire world. Also OpenZFS and nginx is the critical part of my infrastructure, I already can't build modern infrastructures without OpenZFS and nginx at all. I use OpenZFS in the production and it may be good idea to have roadmap, which versions of zfs are buggy and shoud not been used in the production, and which versions of zfs did not contains known critical bugs and can be used in production. For the nginx web server project this information about affected versions described in the one page: https://nginx.org/en/security_advisories.html Is it possible to have something like this for the OpenZFS project?
I use Rocky Linux 9.1 - it is free and open source variant of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.1, and also I use OpenZFS 2.1.x from the official OpenZFS repo for the Enterprise Linux 9.x - zfs-dkms variant, as more stable and more robust solution.
Side note: For current version of Rocky Linux 9.1 I just use latest stable version of zfs, upgrading systems from time to time, no problems here at all:
But I have also old systems - Rocky Linux 8.x, CentOS 7.x with kABI-tracking kmod, and I try to not touch this systems because if kABI-tracking kmod and Linux kernel is not match - i will obtain operating system without zfs at all, and without access to all critical data stored on the zfs datasets. So I prefer to do not touch these old and very old systems without extreme necessity, there is such a saying: "if it works - do not touch it". Because I am not sure what every "new" version is more stable and have less critical bugs than some "old" version. But if some old zfs versions have known critical bugs, which can lead to data corruption - these old systems should be upgraded to new versions of zfs, probably with switching from the kABI-tracking kmod to DKMS style packages. I search in the OpenZFS documentation for the full list of zfs versions with critical bugs, but can't find it. Probably because such full list of the not acceptable for production use zfs versions (or the full list of acceptable for production use zfs versions) did not exists in the OpenZFS documentation? P.S. I apologize for the long message, brevity is not one of my virtues. |
Also, related #13755, almost 1:1 as this my issue and my situation:
|
Describe the feature would like to see added to OpenZFS
Please describe in documentation all known data corruption bugs and affected OpenZFS versions.
For example, in the OpenZFS FAQ.
Currently FAQ includes mention about only two bugs in the Sending and Receiving Streams FAQ chapter.
But, for example, known data corruption issue zfs send --dedup corrupts some files #7703 not described in current documentation at all.
Also, may be other already known data corruption bugs are not described in OpenZFS documentation?
How will this feature improve OpenZFS?
Users of affected versions of OpenZFS will know about danger and can prevent data corruption, for example, by upgrading to unaffected OpenZFS versions or by using known workarounds.
Additional context
For exampe, nginx security advisories described on special page: http://nginx.org/en/security_advisories.html
With clear description, which versions are vulnerable and which versions are not vulnerable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: