Re: another crash and going forward with zfs

On 4/18/23 05:14, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On 4/17/23, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding there were zero
>> problems with block cloning when it wasn't in use or now disabled.
>>
>> The reason I've introduced vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled sysctl, was to exactly
>> avoid mess like this and give us more time to sort all the problems out
>> while making it easy for people to try it.
>>
>> If there is no plan to revert the whole import, I don't see what value
>> removing just block cloning will bring if it is now disabled by default
>> and didn't cause any problems when disabled.
>>
> 
> The feature definitely was not properly stress tested and what not and
> trying to do it keeps running into panics. Given the complexity of the
> feature I would expect there are many bug lurking, some of which
> possibly related to the on disk format. Not having to deal with any of
> this is can be arranged as described above and is imo the most
> sensible route given the timeline for 14.0

Block cloning doesn't create, remove or modify any on-disk data until it 
is in use.

Again, if we are not going to revert the whole merge, I see no point in 
reverting block cloning as until it is enabled, its code is not 
executed. This allow people who upgraded the pools to do nothing special 
and it will allow people to test it easily.

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek