On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > At least as for me, I'd be happy to go with the merkle tree hash-based > solution even if the overhead was extremely large, like anywhere up to 80% > lower IO performance would be fine with me. I would guess that that not is > the case though, I think we're talking about something more like 5-15% > overhead. .. > http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/sv//archive/disk_failures.pdf > https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder.pdf > https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~omutlu/pub/flash-memory-failures-in-the-field-at-facebook_sigmetrics15.pdf > https://storagemojo.com/2007/02/20/everything-you-know-about-disks-is-wrong/
This gives essentially zero information with which to compare the relative failure rates between file system implementations. (Except to point out that the hardware failure rates claimed by various distributors of hard disks is something like an order of magnitude better than observed failure rates - which suggests the underlying market has become monopolistic in practice even if it superficially appears to be something different.) But I guess it's good to hear how you would be happy? Thanks, -- Raul
