Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

Just a warning about a new data corruption issue. Remember, if you do not have important data in at least 3 separated places, its not backed up.

Archive: https://archive.today/SYNFJ

From the post: "At the end of last year OpenZFS 2.2.2 was released to fix a rare but nasty data corruption issue but it turns out there are other data corruption bug(s) still lurking in the OpenZFS file-system codebase.

A Phoronix reader wrote in today about an OpenZFS data corruption bug when employing native encryption and making use of send/recv support. Making use of zfs send on an encrypted dataset can cause one or more snapshots to report errors. OpenZFS data corruption issues in this area have apparently been known for years."

Just a warning about a new data corruption issue. Remember, if you do not have important data in at least 3 separated places, its not backed up. Archive: https://archive.today/SYNFJ From the post: "At the end of last year OpenZFS 2.2.2 was released to fix a rare but nasty data corruption issue but it turns out there are other data corruption bug(s) still lurking in the OpenZFS file-system codebase. A Phoronix reader wrote in today about an OpenZFS data corruption bug when employing native encryption and making use of send/recv support. Making use of zfs send on an encrypted dataset can cause one or more snapshots to report errors. OpenZFS data corruption issues in this area have apparently been known for years."

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

What happens when the corruption issue corrupts the backups before you detect it?

[–] • 0 pt

That's harder. Data integrity checks and filesystem snapshots. It helps but nothing is truly full proof.

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah that's right, a filesystem like that has checksums. As long as the encryption bugs don't also cause the checksum to incorrectly report it as OK it'll be caught when reading it, before it makes it to a backup. So this doesn't sound so bad.