From: Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>
To: "Michael Kjörling" <michael@kjorling.se>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How does btrfs behave on checksum mismatch?
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:02:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121027220215.GA5042@carfax.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121027215645.GU2381@yeono.kjorling.se>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2093 bytes --]
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 09:56:45PM +0000, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> I came across the tidbit that ZFS has a contract guarantee that the
> data read back will either be correct (the checksum computed over the
> data read from the disk matches the checksum stored on disk), or you
> get an I/O error. Obviously, this greatly reduces the probability that
> the data is invalid. (Particularly when taken in combination with the
> disk firmware's own ECC and checksumming.)
>
> With the default options, does btrfs make any similar guarantees? If
> not, then are there any options to force it to make such guarantees?
It does indeed do the same thing: if the checksum doesn't match the
block, then the alternative block is read (if one exists, e.g. RAID-1,
RAID-10). If that does not exist, or also has a checksum failure, then
EIO is returned.
Hugo.
> I'm interested in this both from a specification and an implementation
> point of view.
>
> The last thing anyone wants is probably undetected bit rot, and with
> today's large drives, even with the quite low bit rot numbers it can
> be a real concern. If even the act of simply successfully reading a
> file guarantees, to the extent of the checksumming algorithm's ability
> to detect changes, that the data read is the same as was once written,
> that would be a major selling point for btrfs for me personally.
>
> The closest I was able to find was that btrfs uses crc32c currently
> for data and metadata checksumming and that this can be turned off if
> so desired (using the "nodatasum" mount option), but nothing about
> what the file system code does or is supposed to do in the face of a
> checksum mismatch.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- It used to take a lot of talent and a certain type of ---
upbringing to be perfectly polite and have filthy manners
at the same time. Now all it needs is a computer.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-27 22:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-27 21:56 How does btrfs behave on checksum mismatch? Michael Kjörling
2012-10-27 22:02 ` Hugo Mills [this message]
2012-10-27 22:09 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 12:23 ` Ronnie Collinson
2012-10-28 13:23 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-28 13:26 ` Hugo Mills
2012-10-28 13:36 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-28 13:39 ` Hugo Mills
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121027220215.GA5042@carfax.org.uk \
--to=hugo@carfax.org.uk \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@kjorling.se \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).