![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:50:22PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:34:18 EDT, Bill Davidsen said: > > I think he is talking about another problem. RAID addresses detectable > > failures at the hardware level. I believe that he wants validation after > > the data is returned (without error) from the device. While in most > > cases if what you wrote and what you read don't match it's memory, > > improving the chances of catching the error is useful, given that > > non-server often lacks ECC on memory, or people buy cheaper non-parity > > memory. > > There's other issues as well. Why do people run 'tripwire' on boxes that > have RAID on them? To notice hacking. RAID protects against hardware failure, it does _not_ protect against any change that comes through the normal filesystem channels. RAID doesn't help the slightest against viruses and hackers. RAID is _not_ a backup, when a hacker (or a user error) changes an important file, it is changed in all mirrors of a raid-1 set, and raid-5 checksums are updated so the change becomes valid. But tripwire will notice that a protected file changed. Helge Hafting - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-07-04 14:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||