Edit the hole_birth text a bit
parent
9aaa1e71f3
commit
60ee36b486
4
FAQ.md
4
FAQ.md
|
@ -206,9 +206,9 @@ $ zpool set cachefile=none tank
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### hole_birth Bugs
|
### hole_birth Bugs
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The hole_birth feature has/had bugs, the result of which is that, if you do a zfs send -i (or -R, since it uses -i) from an affected dataset, the receiver *will not see any checksum or other errors, but will not match the source*.
|
The hole_birth feature has/had bugs, the result of which is that, if you do a `zfs send -i` (or `-R`, since it uses `-i`) from an affected dataset, the receiver *will not see any checksum or other errors, but will not match the source*.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
0.6.5.8 and 0.7.0-rc1 (and above) default to ignoring the faulty metadata which causes this issue *on the sender side*.
|
ZoL versions 0.6.5.8 and 0.7.0-rc1 (and above) default to ignoring the faulty metadata which causes this issue *on the sender side*.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
For more details, see the [[hole_birth FAQ]].
|
For more details, see the [[hole_birth FAQ]].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -1,15 +1,15 @@
|
||||||
### Short explanation
|
### Short explanation
|
||||||
The hole_birth feature has/had bugs, the result of which is that, if you do a zfs send -i (or -R, since it uses -i) from an affected dataset, the receiver *will not see any checksum or other errors, but will not match the source*.
|
The hole_birth feature has/had bugs, the result of which is that, if you do a `zfs send -i` (or `-R`, since it uses `-i`) from an affected dataset, the receiver *will not see any checksum or other errors, but will not match the source*.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
0.6.5.8 and 0.7.0-rc1 (and above) default to ignoring the faulty metadata which causes this issue *on the sender side*.
|
ZoL versions 0.6.5.8 and 0.7.0-rc1 (and above) default to ignoring the faulty metadata which causes this issue *on the sender side*.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### FAQ
|
### FAQ
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#### I have a pool with hole_birth enabled, how do I know if I'm affected?
|
#### I have a pool with hole_birth enabled, how do I know if I am affected?
|
||||||
It's technically possible to calculate whether you have any affected files, but it requires scraping zdb output for each file in each snapshot in each dataset, which is a combinatoric nightmare. (If you really want it, there's a proof of concept [here](https://github.com/rincebrain/hole_birth_test)
|
It is technically possible to calculate whether you have any affected files, but it requires scraping zdb output for each file in each snapshot in each dataset, which is a combinatoric nightmare. (If you really want it, there is a proof of concept [here](https://github.com/rincebrain/hole_birth_test).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#### Is there any less painful way to fix this if we've already received an affected snapshot?
|
#### Is there any less painful way to fix this if we have already received an affected snapshot?
|
||||||
No, the data you need was simply not present in the send stream, unfortunately, and can't feasibly be rewritten in place.
|
No, the data you need was simply not present in the send stream, unfortunately, and cannot feasibly be rewritten in place.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Long explanation
|
### Long explanation
|
||||||
hole_birth is a feature to speed up ZFS send -i - in particular, ZFS used to not store metadata on when "holes" (sparse regions) in files were created, so every zfs send -i needed to include every hole.
|
hole_birth is a feature to speed up ZFS send -i - in particular, ZFS used to not store metadata on when "holes" (sparse regions) in files were created, so every zfs send -i needed to include every hole.
|
||||||
|
@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ hole_birth, as the name implies, added tracking for the txg (transaction group)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Unfortunately, hole_birth had a number of edge cases where it could "forget" to set the birth_time of holes in some cases, causing it to record the birth_time as 0 (the value used prior to hole_birth, and essentially equivalent to "since file creation").
|
Unfortunately, hole_birth had a number of edge cases where it could "forget" to set the birth_time of holes in some cases, causing it to record the birth_time as 0 (the value used prior to hole_birth, and essentially equivalent to "since file creation").
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This meant that, when you did a zfs send -i, since zfs send doesn't have any knowledge of the surrounding snapshots when sending a given snapshot, it would see the creation txg as 0, conclude "oh, it's 0, I must have already sent this before", and not include it.
|
This meant that, when you did a zfs send -i, since zfs send does not have any knowledge of the surrounding snapshots when sending a given snapshot, it would see the creation txg as 0, conclude "oh, it is 0, I must have already sent this before", and not include it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This means that, on the receiving side, it doesn't know those holes should exist, and doesn't create them - leading to differences between what you have on the source and the destination.
|
This means that, on the receiving side, it does not know those holes should exist, and does not create them. This leads to differences between the source and the destination.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
0.6.5.8 and 0.7.0-rc1 (and above) default to ignoring this metadata and always sending holes with birth_time 0, configurable using the tunable known as "ignore_hole_birth" or "send_holes_without_birth_time" (the latter is what OpenZFS standardized on; 0.6.5.8 only has the former, but for any ZoL version with send_holes_without_birth_time, they point to the same value, so changing either will work).
|
ZoL versions 0.6.5.8 and 0.7.0-rc1 (and above) default to ignoring this metadata and always sending holes with birth_time 0, configurable using the tunable known as `ignore_hole_birth` or `send_holes_without_birth_time`. The latter is what OpenZFS standardized on. ZoL version 0.6.5.8 only has the former, but for any ZoL version with `send_holes_without_birth_time`, they point to the same value, so changing either will work.
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue