> > in the case of zfs, my claim is that since zfs can reuse blocks, two > > vdev backups, each with corruption or missing data in different places > > are pretty well useless. > > > Got it. However, I'm still not fully convinced there's a definite edge > one way or the other. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to defend > ZFS (I don't think it needs defending, anyway) but rather I'm trying > to test my mental model of how both work.
if you end up rewriting a free block in zfs, there sure is. you can't decide which one is correct. > P.S. Oh, and in case of ZFS a damaged vdev will be detected (and > possibly re-silvered) under normal working conditions, while > fossil might not even notice a corruption. not true. one of many score checks: srv/lump.c:103: seterr(EStrange, "lookuplump returned bad score %V not %V", u->score, score); - erik
