| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:59:36 +0100 From: David Greaves <david@...eaves.com> To: david@...g.hm Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: limits on raid david@...g.hm wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, David Chinner wrote: > 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 How different is that to raid1/5/6 being set to a 'paranoid' "read-verify" mode (as per Dan's recent email) where a read reads from _all_ spindles and verifies (and with R6 maybe corrects) the stripe before returning it? Doesn't solve DaveC's issue about the fs doing redundancy but isn't that essentially just fs level mirroring? David - 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