Checksumming blocks? [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

If the software (filesystem like ZFS or database like Berkeley DB) finds a mismatch for a checksum on a block read, then what?

Is there a recovery mechanism, or do you just be happy you know there is a problem (and go to backup)?

Thx

Matthias Andree wrote:

Berkeley DB can, since version 4.1 (IIRC), write checksums (newer
versions document this as SHA1) on its database pages, to detect
corruptions and writes that were supposed to be atomic but failed
(because you cannot write 4K or 16K atomically on a disk drive).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Checksumming blocks? [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
    • From: David Masover <[email protected]>
  • Re: Checksumming blocks? [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
    • From: Tomasz Torcz <[email protected]>
  • Re: Checksumming blocks? [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
    • From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: "Horst H. von Brand" <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: David Masover <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: David Masover <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm] [1/2] Remove Deadline I/O scheduler
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -rt DO NOT APPLY] Fix for tg3 networking lockup
• Previous by thread: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
• Next by thread: Re: Checksumming blocks? [was Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]