Jorgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
The recent discussions regarding reiser4 and possible inclusion have
also caught the eye(s) of LWN.
I have made the article available for you, non-lwn-subscribers, so that you may
have a look at it here
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/193663/9d2ac03195c775bc/;.
On 4-Aug-06, at 3:25 AM, Russell Leighton wrote:
If the software (filesystem like ZFS or database like Berkeley DB)
finds a mismatch for a checksum on a block read, then what?
Is there a recovery mechanism, or do you just be happy you know
there is a problem (and go to backup)?
ZFS
Hi,
On 2006-08-03 23:44:55, Hans Reiser wrote:
Jorgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
The recent discussions regarding reiser4 and possible inclusion have
also caught the eye(s) of LWN.
I have made the article available for you, non-lwn-subscribers, so that you
may
have a look at it here
That was exactly the summary I was looking for.
I would enourage folks to read the referenced link Toby sent:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bonwick?entry=zfs_end_to_end_data
...also the linked RAID-Z summary from this article was very
interesting, since something like this is needed
Hans Reiser wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, Hans Reiser wrote:
You will want to try our compression plugin, it has an ecc for every
64k
What kind of forward error correction would that be,
Actually we use checksums, not ECC. If
On 8/4/06, Edward Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, Hans Reiser wrote:
You will want to try our compression plugin, it has an ecc for every
64k
What kind of forward error correction would that
Russell Leighton wrote:
Is there a recovery mechanism, or do you just be happy you know there is
a problem (and go to backup)?
You probably go to backup anyway. The recovery mechanism just means you
get to choose the downtime to restore from backup (if there is
downtime), versus being
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:55:57AM -0500, David Masover wrote:
If I understand it right, the original Reiser4 model of file metadata is
the file-as-directory stuff that caused such a furor the last big push
for inclusion (search for Silent semantic changes in Reiser4):
Title: symlink issues with reiser4
Before I investigate whether it is a problem with the test or tested program or something else, are there known issues with symbolic links and reiser4? See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-485689-highlight-reiser4+symbolic.html for details on what I am
Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Vladimir V. Saveliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:32 +0200, Åukasz Mierzwa wrote:
What fancy (beside cryptocompress) does reiser4 do now?
it is supposed to provide an ability to easy modify filesystem behaviour
in various aspects without
Edward Shishkin wrote:
How about we switch to ecc, which would help with bit rot not sector
loss?
Interesting aspect.
Yes, we can implement ECC as a special crypto transform that inflates
data. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible via translation of key
offsets with scale factor 1.
Antonio Vargas wrote:
On 8/4/06, Edward Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Edward Shishkin wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, Hans Reiser wrote:
You will want to try our compression plugin, it has an ecc for every
64k
What kind
12 matches
Mail list logo
