Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Rob Landley <> | | Subject | Re: what is our answer to ZFS? | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:34:34 -0600 |
| |
On Monday 21 November 2005 18:45, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > Sun is proposing it can predict what storage layout will be efficient for > > as yet unheard of quantities of data, with unknown access patterns, at > > least a couple decades from now. It's also proposing that data > > compression and checksumming are the filesystem's job. Hands up anybody > > who spots conflicting trends here already? Who thinks the 128 bit > > requirement came from marketing rather than the engineers? > > Actually, if you are storing information in single protons, I'd say > you _need_ checksumming :-).
You need error correcting codes at the media level. A molecular storage system like this would probably look a lot more like flash or dram than it would magnetic media. (For one thing, I/O bandwidth and seek times become a serious bottleneck with high density single point of access systems.)
> [I actually agree with Sun here, not trusting disk is good idea. At > least you know kernel panic/oops/etc can't be caused by bit corruption on > the disk.]
But who said the filesystem was the right level to do this at?
Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |