From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Robinson Subject: Re: Checksumming RAID? / SCSI SAS T10 PI and DIF/DIX / T13 SATA EPP Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:10:08 +0000 Message-ID: <50C07D10.3000207@anonymous.org.uk> References: <14319197.21.1353936449959.JavaMail.root@zimbra> <20121203122444.GV8912@reaktio.net> <20121203140946.GW8912@reaktio.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UGFzaSBLw6Rya2vDpGluZW4=?= , Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , Linux Raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 05/12/2012 19:05, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Pasi" =3D=3D Pasi K=C3=A4rkk=C3=A4inen writes: > Pasi> (Added CC to Martin in the case he has some thoughts about gene= ric > Pasi> Linux checksumming RAID without T10 PI disks..) > > There have been a few attempts at a checksumming DM target. However, = I > think btrfs is a much better solution for this stuff. I think there's room for both. Checksumming at the block level, below m= d=20 RAID so presumably in a DM target, could help avoid silent data=20 corruption in such a way that the md layer could reconstruct valid data= =2E=20 Checksumming at the filesystem level doesn't give you reconstruction -=20 unless you add redundancy/RAID functions into the filesystem, which is = a=20 whole other discussion. Cheers, John. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html