[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44CF9267.7050202@slaphack.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:41:59 -0500
From: David Masover <ninja@...phack.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...il.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Adrian Ulrich <reiser4@...nkenlights.ch>,
"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>,
bernd-schubert@....de, reiserfs-list@...esys.com,
jbglaw@...-owl.de, clay.barnes@...il.com, rudy@...ons.demon.nl,
ipso@...ppymail.ca, reiser@...esys.com, lkml@...productions.com,
jeff@...zik.org, tytso@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org
regarding reiser4 inclusion
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 8/1/06, David Masover <ninja@...phack.com> wrote:
>> Yikes. Undetected.
>>
>> Wait, what? Disks, at least, would be protected by RAID. Are you
>> telling me RAID won't detect such an error?
>
> Unless the disk ECC catches it raid won't know anything is wrong.
>
> This is why ZFS offers block checksums... it can then try all the
> permutations of raid regens to find a solution which gives the right
> checksum.
Isn't there a way to do this at the block layer? Something in
device-mapper?
> Every level of the system must be paranoid and take measure to avoid
> corruption if the system is to avoid it... it's a tough problem. It
> seems that the ZFS folks have addressed this challenge by building as
> much of what is classically separate layers into one part.
Sounds like bad design to me, and I can point to the antipattern, but
what do I know?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists