From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:29:05 -0500 Message-ID: <44E258C1.4020403@slaphack.com> References: <44E24563.1040900@namesys.com> <44E24A54.4010604@slaphack.com> <44E24E46.6070106@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <44E24E46.6070106@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Edward Shishkin Cc: Tom Reinhart , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Edward Shishkin wrote: > David Masover wrote: >> Edward Shishkin wrote: >> >>> 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." >>>> >>> >>> Actually we dont need a special API: kernel should warn and recommend >>> running fsck, which scans the whole tree and handles blocks with bad >>> checksums. >> >> >> What does this have to do with RAID, though? >> >> > > I assumed we dont have raid: reiser4 can support its own checksums/ecc > signatures for (meta)data protection via node plugin We don't have a guaranteed raid, however, it would be nice to do the right thing when there is raid.