On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:22:19PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 08:17:02PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 07:47:16PM +0200, Thomas Glanzmann wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > > Checksums are not very useful for themselves. They are useful when we > > > > have other copy of data (think raid mirroring) so data can be > > > > reconstructed from working copy. > > > > > > it would be possible to identify data corruption. > > > > > > > Yes, but what good is identification? We could only return I/O error. > > Ability to fix corruption (like ZFS) is the real killer. > > Isn't that what we have RAID-1/5/6 for? ZFS was already called ,,blatant layering violation''. ;) Yes,that what RAID is for. And if we want checksums in filesystem, that's the best way to utilise them. -- Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality. [email protected] -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
Attachment:
pgpFa5S0pGKNU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Blatant layering violations (was Re: ext4 features)
- From: Valerie Henson <[email protected]>
- Re: ext4 features
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Blatant layering violations (was Re: ext4 features)
- References:
- ext4 features
- From: Thomas Glanzmann <[email protected]>
- Re: ext4 features
- From: Tomasz Torcz <[email protected]>
- Re: ext4 features
- From: Thomas Glanzmann <[email protected]>
- Re: ext4 features
- From: Tomasz Torcz <[email protected]>
- Re: ext4 features
- From: Helge Hafting <[email protected]>
- ext4 features
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.17-mm6
- Next by Date: Re: ext4 features
- Previous by thread: Re: ext4 features
- Next by thread: Re: ext4 features
- Index(es):