From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:33273 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754112AbaKXUHw (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:07:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:07:45 -0500 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Btrfs: add sha256 checksum option To: Liu Bo CC: linux-btrfs Message-ID: <1416859665.3019.6@mail.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <1416806586-18050-1-git-send-email-bo.li.liu@oracle.com> References: <1416806586-18050-1-git-send-email-bo.li.liu@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Liu Bo wrote: > This brings a strong-but-slow checksum algorithm, sha256. > > Actually btrfs used sha256 at the early time, but then moved to > crc32c for > performance purposes. > > As crc32c is sort of weak due to its hash collision issue, we need a > stronger > algorithm as an alternative. > > Users can choose sha256 from mkfs.btrfs via > > $ mkfs.btrfs -C 256 /device Agree with others about -C 256...-C sha256 is only three letters more ;) What's the target for this mode? Are we trying to find evil people scribbling on the drive, or are we trying to find bad hardware? -chris