From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263334AbTJQIPt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:15:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263340AbTJQIPt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:15:49 -0400 Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165]:39040 "EHLO natsmtp00.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263334AbTJQIPr (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:15:47 -0400 Message-ID: <3F8FA52E.2090906@softhome.net> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:15:42 +0200 From: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" Organization: Home Sweet Home User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030927 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Transparent compression in the FS References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > Val Henson wrote: >> of many kinds of hardware errors. Further analysis shows that this >> approach is not as risk-free as it seems at first glance." > > > I'm curious if anyone has done any work on using multiple different > checksums? For example, the cost of checksumming a single block with > multiple algorithms (sha1+md5+crc32 for a crazy example), and storing With sha1 you probably have 8-9 nines reliability. You can improve this - but still adding nines doesn't mean it (reliability) becomes 100%. my 0.02c. -- Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken. -- "... and for $64000 question, could you get yourself vaguely familiar with the notion of on-topic posting?" -- Al Viro @ LKML