[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAO_9QQf1MOGVsMB_50HF_bSAKid04JkDCCVX=Wauihg-s6AuJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:08:04 -0800
From: Jitesh Shah <jitesh.1337@...il.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Reproducible block structure
.. inline ..
> > Now, if the script is ran in the SAME way for all 5 HDDs, is it
> > guaranteed that these HDDs will be same at the block level too? (i.e.
> > block allocation/deallocation will follow the same pattern). Assume
> > single-core system with only one process modifying the HDD in
> > predetermined order.
>
> Nope, there's no way to guarantee this.
Thanks. I was quite sure of this, but still thought it was a good idea
to ask in case I am missing an obscure detail.
> > Why do I ask -> I am tinkering with the idea of block level
> > verification of images. If the above guarantees can be provided, I can
> > easily hash the raw HDD for verification purposes.
>
> If you want to do a block level verification of the image, why not
> also do block level update of the image as well?
Yep. Thats the plan B. We had a bunch of utilities using file-based
approaches. I was trying to find a way to move them one-by-one. Looks
like moving to a block-based approach altogether is a more worthwhile
investment of time.
Thanks a lot for your responses Carlos and Ted.
Jitesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists