Re: limits on raid

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, David Chinner wrote:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:56:44PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:

I have that - apparently naive - idea that drives use strong checksum,
and will never return bad data, only good data or an error.  If this
isn't right, then it would really help to understand what the cause of
other failures are before working out how to handle them....

The drive is not the only source of errors, though.  You could
have a path problem that is corrupting random bits between the drive
and the filesystem. So the data on the disk might be fine, and
reading it via a redundant path might be all that is needed.

one of the 'killer features' of zfs is that it does checksums of every file on disk. so many people don't consider the disk infallable.

several other filesystems also do checksums

both bitkeeper and git do checksums of files to detect disk corruption

No, all of those checksums are to detect *filesystem* corruption,
not device corruption (a mere side-effect).

as david C points out there are many points in the path where the data could get corrupted besides on the platter.

Yup, that too.

But drives either return good data, or an error.

Cheers
-
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/

[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]
  Powered by Linux