Re: Is 14.0 to released based on 0 for sysctl vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled ?

On Nov 4, 2023, at 04:38, Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 4:01, Ronald Klop wrote:
> 
>> On 11/4/23 02:39, Mark Millard wrote:
>>> It looks to me like releng/14.0 (as of 14.0-RC4) still has:
>>> 
>>> int zfs_bclone_enabled;
>>> SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, bclone_enabled, CTLFLAG_RWTUN,
>>> &zfs_bclone_enabled, 0, "Enable block cloning");
>>> 
>>> leaving block cloning effectively disabled by default, no
>>> matter what the pool has enabled.
>>> 
>>> https://www.freebsd.org/releases/14.0R/relnotes/ also reports:
>>> 
>>> QUOTE
>>> OpenZFS has been upgraded to version 2.2. New features include:
>>>     •
>>> block cloning, which allows shallow copies of blocks in file copies. This is optional, and disabled by default; it can be enabled with sysctl vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled=1.
>>> END QUOTE
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think this answers your question in the subject.
> 
> I think so too (and I wrote that text).

Thanks for the confirmation of the final intent.

I believe this makes:

QUOTE
author Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> 2023-05-25 20:53:08 +0000
committer GitHub <noreply@github.com> 2023-05-25 20:53:08 +0000
commit 91a2325c4a0fbe01d0bf212e44fa9d85017837ce (patch)
tree dd01dfce6aeef357ade1775acf18aade535c6271
. . .
Update compatibility.d files

Add an openzfs-2.2 compatibility file for the next release. Edon-R support has been enabled for FreeBSD removing the need for different FreeBSD and Linux files. Symlinks for the -linux and -freebsd names are created for any scripts expecting that convention. Additionally, a symlink for ubunutu-22.04 was added. Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Closes #14833
END QUOTE

technically incorrect in that compatibility.d/openzfs-2.2-freebsd
should be distinct in content from compatibility.d/openzfs-2.2 so
that block cloning would not be enabled.


>>> Just curiousity on my part about the default completeness of
>>> openzfs-2.2 support, not an objection either way.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I haven't seen new issues with block cloning in the last few weeks mentioned on the mailing lists. All known issues are fixed AFAIK.
>> But I can imagine that the risk+effect ratio of data corruption is seen as a bit too high for a 14.0 release for this particular feature. That does not diminish the rest of the completeness of openzfs-2.2.
>> 
>> NB: I'm not involved in developing openzfs or the decision making in the release. Just repeating what I read on the lists.
> 
> There was another block cloning fix in 14.0-RC4; see the commit log.
> Maybe there will be no more issues, but it seems that corner cases were
> still being found recently.
>> 

Looks like I'll stay at openzfs-2.1 pool features until there is
a release that no longer has the default status:

0 for sysctl vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled

I use main [so: 15 now] but only enable openzfs-2.* pool features
supported by default on some FreeBSD release, that has an accurate
compatibility.d/openzfs-2.*-freebsd file.

===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com