2016-01-31 9:24 GMT+01:00 Tinker :
> Q1:
>
> My most important question to you is, the DATA that you CHECKSUM, do you
> include the SECTOR NUMBER (or other disk location info) of that data into
> your checksum function's inputs, so if the underlying storage's storage
>
I did not oppose adding the sector number, just the "idea" that internal
relocations would make this number change.
If it did, then everything would break for all filesystems, so that is
obviously not how it is done.
2016-02-01 11:11 GMT+01:00 Tinker :
> On 2016-02-01
On 2016-02-01 16:29, Janne Johansson wrote:
2016-01-31 9:24 GMT+01:00 Tinker :
Q1:
My most important question to you is, the DATA that you CHECKSUM, do
you
include the SECTOR NUMBER (or other disk location info) of that data
into
your checksum function's inputs, so if
Since these are not emails with patches, let's not disturb tech@ but
have this thread moved to misc@ , thanks.
On 2016-02-01 18:40, Janne Johansson wrote:
I did not oppose adding the sector number, just the "idea" that
internal
relocations would make this number change.
If it did, then
Hi Karel,
Can you please tell me, about your RAID1C patch:
So basically, your RAID1C patch is just the ordinary softraid, BUT, with
checksums for each sector, located right at the end of the physical
disc.
Q1:
My most important question to you is, the DATA that you CHECKSUM, do you
Migrating this thread to misc@ .
On 2016-01-31 16:24, Tinker wrote:
Hi Karel,
Can you please tell me, about your RAID1C patch:
So basically, your RAID1C patch is just the ordinary softraid, BUT,
with checksums for each sector, located right at the end of the
physical disc.
Q1:
My most