From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.trendhosting.net ([195.8.117.5]:52799 "EHLO mail1.trendhosting.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724Ab2HVLGA (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:06:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.trendhosting.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C1915112 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:55:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail1.trendhosting.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (thp003.trendhosting.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fIsStnD9LbIJ for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:55:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <5034BD0D.8050706@pocock.com.au> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:05:49 +0200 From: Daniel Pocock MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: interaction with hardware RAID? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: It is well documented that btrfs data recovery (after silent corruption) is dependent on the use of btrfs's own RAID1. However, I'm curious about whether any hardware RAID vendors are contemplating ways to integrate more closely with btrfs, for example, such that when btrfs detects a bad checksum, it would be able to ask the hardware RAID controller to return all alternate copies of the block. Is this technically possible within any hardware RAID device today, even though not implemented in btrfs? Has there been any suggestion that vendors would support this in future, presumably for the benefit of btrfs, ZFS and other checksumming filesystems?