Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ric Wheeler
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 4:48 pm

> ---

I would strike the entire mention of MD devices since it is your assertion, not 
a proven fact. You will cause more data loss from common events (single sector 
errors, complete drive failure) by steering people away from more reliable 
storage configurations because of a really rare edge case (power failure during 
split write to two raid members while doing a RAID rebuild).


All users who care about data integrity - including those who do not use MD5 but 
just regular single S-ATA disks - will get better reliability from a UPS.



This is very misleading. All storage "can" have silent data loss, you are making 
a statement without specifics about frequency.

FSCK can repair the file system metadata, but will not detect any data loss or 
corruption in the data blocks allocated to user files. To detect data loss 
properly, you need to checksum (or digitally sign) all objects stored in a file 
system and verify them on a regular basis.

Also helps to keep a separate list of those objects on another device so that 
when the metadata does take a hit, you can enumerate your objects and verify 
that you have not lost anything.

ric


ric


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is ..., Goswin von Brederlow, (Mon Mar 30, 8:06 am)
[patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:21 pm)
[patch] document that ext2 can't handle barriers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:27 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 3:33 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:40 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 3:59 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 4:37 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 4:48 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 4:56 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:06 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:12 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:12 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 5:26 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:26 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:28 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:38 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:39 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:44 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:45 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:50 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 6:17 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 6:19 pm)
Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable oper ..., Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Tue Aug 25, 7:53 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Tue Aug 25, 9:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Tue Aug 25, 9:24 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:21 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:22 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:25 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Wed Aug 26, 4:58 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Theodore Tso, (Wed Aug 26, 5:37 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Theodore Tso, (Wed Aug 26, 5:40 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Wed Aug 26, 6:11 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Wed Aug 26, 6:44 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Wed Aug 26, 7:45 am)
Re: MD/DM and barriers (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document c ..., Alasdair G Kergon, (Thu Aug 27, 11:09 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret, Florian Weimer, (Fri Aug 28, 12:11 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret, NeilBrown, (Fri Aug 28, 12:23 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 2:38 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 2:39 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ron Johnson, (Sat Aug 29, 4:47 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, jim owens, (Sat Aug 29, 9:12 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 11:49 pm)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Aug 30, 9:35 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 6:16 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 6:21 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Jesse Brandeburg, (Mon Aug 31, 10:49 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 11:31 am)