In Perkeep, every chunk of data and all metadata (which is just more data blobs) is named by its cryptographic digest, which is way stronger than simple filesystem checksum, or no checksums (like many filesystems).
The digests are validated when uploading new data to Perkeep, during replication, and at other times, but we don't really document or have a cohesive policy (or knobs or display) for when we do or don't. I filed https://github.com/camlistore/camlistore/issues/990 for that. On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Timothy Quinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Advanced file systems like ZFS can protect data against silent corruption > (eg. bitrot). Does Perkeep have similar built in protections against such > silent corruption? > > If it does not contain such bitrot protection at present, would it be > something that can be realistically done in current or roadmapped designs? > > I've been recently burned by bitrot on large compressed VMs that were on a > home NAS which ran Linux mdraid so this is a problem near and dear to me. > > BTW - Wicked project. Keep up the great work! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Camlistore" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Camlistore" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
