mirror of
https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs.git
synced 2026-08-15 17:43:13 +00:00
chore: merge main into quota reservation branch
This commit is contained in:
@@ -5,9 +5,10 @@ availability, what to expect when several nodes are down at once (sequential
|
||||
cold start), and how to read the degraded-mode signals. Written for the
|
||||
failure pattern reported in rustfs/rustfs#4304.
|
||||
|
||||
> Upgrading the binary or container image never changes the on-disk data
|
||||
> format. Replacing the executable and restarting is safe; no migration step
|
||||
> runs on startup.
|
||||
> Upgrading the binary or container image does not change the on-disk data
|
||||
> format unless an explicitly enabled feature documents a version floor.
|
||||
> Replacing the executable and restarting does not run a migration step on
|
||||
> startup.
|
||||
|
||||
> [!WARNING]
|
||||
> The release that switches local SSE wrapped DEKs from the legacy
|
||||
@@ -19,6 +20,17 @@ failure pattern reported in rustfs/rustfs#4304.
|
||||
> and then resume traffic. Downgrading or rolling back after new encrypted
|
||||
> objects are written is not supported.
|
||||
|
||||
> [!WARNING]
|
||||
> `RUSTFS_DATA_MOVEMENT_PART_CHECKSUMS_WRITE` remains inactive unless
|
||||
> `RUSTFS_DATA_MOVEMENT_PART_CHECKSUMS_FLEET_CONFIRMED` is also `true`. Enable
|
||||
> both only after every node that can read or write object metadata supports
|
||||
> the `part-checksums` sidecar and the fleet has adopted that version as its
|
||||
> rollback floor. Leave either setting disabled throughout a mixed-version
|
||||
> rolling upgrade. Once rebalance or decommission has migrated a legacy
|
||||
> checksummed multipart object with both settings enabled, rolling back to an
|
||||
> older build is not supported: older readers ignore the sidecar and can
|
||||
> report an object checksum in place of the requested part checksum.
|
||||
|
||||
## TL;DR
|
||||
|
||||
- **Rolling restart (no downtime):** restart **one node at a time**, and wait
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user