lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: amd64 sata_nv (massive) memory corruption
Hi!

> >> I'm game. Care to guide me through? So: on every write, this
> >> new device mapper module computes a checksum and stores
> >> it somewhere. On every read, it computes a checksum and
> >> compares to the stored value. Easy enough I guess.
> >>
> >> Several hard parts:
> >> -- where to store the checksums?
> >
> > That is the million dollar question - plus you can argue it is the fs
> > that should do it. There is stuff crawling through the standards world to
> > provide a small per block additional info area on disk sectors.
>
> My objection to fs-layer checksums (e.g. in some user-space
> file system) is that it doesn't leverage the extra info that RAID
> has. If a block is bad, RAID can probably fetch another one
> that is good. You can't do this at the file-system level.
>
> I assume I can layer device-mappers anywhere, right?
> Layering one *underneath* md-raid would allow it to
> reject/discard bad blocks, and then let the raid layer
> try to find a good block somewhere else.
>
> I assume that a device mapper can alter the number
> of blocks-in to the number of blocks-out; that it doesn't
> have to be 1-1. Then for every 10 sectors of data, it
> would use 11 sectors of storage, one holding the
> checksum. I'm very naive about how the block layer
> works, so I don't know what snags there might be.

I did something like that long time ago -- with loop, and separate
partition for checksums.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-07 09:49    [W:0.111 / U:10.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site