README, README_ZH, SECURITY, COMPLIANCE, CONTRIBUTING, NOTICE,
code_of_conduct, the vulnerability and PR-etiquette documents, the GitHub issue
and pull request templates, and the docs/ tree all present Silo as the product.
The Grafana dashboards under docs/metrics/prometheus/grafana/ have their panel
titles and descriptions rebranded while every minio_* query, label and
expression is left alone, so existing alerts and recording rules keep matching.
The distinction the review demanded is applied per hit rather than by
search-and-replace:
- Product and command text becomes Silo and silo: install and run instructions,
systemd examples, compose services, download links, badges.
- Protocol and interface text keeps MinIO: MINIO_* variables, minio_* metrics,
x-minio-* headers, /minio/* routes, .minio.sys, arn:minio, and API field and
error names.
- Attribution keeps MinIO and gains the fork's own: the AGPL obligations,
original copyright, CREDITS and NOTICE stay, with the modification notice
added alongside rather than replacing them.
- Historical and third-party references are left as facts, not rewritten for
brand tidiness.
README and README_ZH each carry an explicit non-affiliation notice, document
the side-by-side package migration including the
/etc/systemd/system/silo.service.d/10-legacy-user.conf drop-in for keeping a
legacy UID/GID, and state that recursive chown is never performed. The trademark
attribution uses the policy's approved "based on MinIO technology" wording, not
the shortened form the policy rejects.
github.com/pgsty/minio links are left in place and labelled transitional. The
repository has not been renamed, and rewriting them now would produce documented
URLs that 404 until the cutover; they change in the cutover commit together with
the goreleaser release target, the OCI source label and the raw-content branch.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
In cases where a cluster is degraded, we do not uphold our consistency
guarantee and we will write fewer erasure codes and rely on healing
to recreate the missing shards.
In some cases replacing known bad disks in practice take days.
We want to change the behavior of a known degraded system to keep
the erasure code promise of the storage class for each object.
This will create the objects with the same confidence as a fully
functional cluster. The tradeoff will be that objects created
during a partial outage will take up slightly more space.
This means that when the storage class is EC:4, there should
always be written 4 parity shards, even if some disks are unavailable.
When an object is created on a set, the disks are immediately
checked. If any disks are unavailable additional parity shards
will be made for each offline disk, up to 50% of the number of disks.
We add an internal metadata field with the actual and intended
erasure code level, this can optionally be picked up later by
the scanner if we decide that data like this should be re-sharded.
Current implementation requires server pools to have
same erasure stripe sizes, to facilitate same SLA
and expectations.
This PR allows server pools to be variadic, i.e they
do not have to be same erasure stripe sizes - instead
they should have SLA for parity ratio.
If the parity ratio cannot be guaranteed by the new
server pool, the deployment is rejected i.e server
pool expansion is not allowed.
Feng Ruohang