From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:55:54 -0700 Message-ID: <44E242EA.2030605@namesys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tom Reinhart Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Tom Reinhart wrote: > Anyone with serious need for data integrity already uses RAID, so why > add brand new complexity for a solved problem? > > RAID is great at recovering data, but not detecting errors. File > system can detect errors with checksum. What is missing is an API > between layers for filesystem to say "this sector is bad, go rebuild it." I agree that such an API is needed. I think there are a lot of systems on desktops that lack RAID though. Probably I should leave ECC for some "hopefully next year" future release though. > > This seems like a much more simple and useful thing than adding ECC > into the filesystem itself. > > >>>> How about we switch to ecc, which would help with bit rot not sector >>>> loss? >>> >>> >>> Interesting aspect. >>> >>> Yes, we can implement ECC as a special crypto transform that inflates >>> data. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible via translation of key >>> offsets with scale factor > 1. >>> >>> Of course, it is better then nothing, but anyway meta-data remains >>> ecc-unprotected, and, hence, robustness is not increased.. >>> > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how > to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > > >