| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@×××××.at> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> got my first two demo nodes up and in-sync ... what a success ;-) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I started to look into ceph, and my biggest issue is that they don't |
| 6 |
protect against silent corruption. They do checksum data during |
| 7 |
transit, but not at rest. That means that you could end up with 3 |
| 8 |
different copies of a file and no way to know which one is the right |
| 9 |
one. Simply storing the data on btrfs isn't enough - that will |
| 10 |
protect against files changing on the disk itself, but you could STILL |
| 11 |
end up with 3 different copies of a file on different nodes and no way |
| 12 |
to know which one is right, if the error happens at a higher level |
| 13 |
than the btrfs filesystem/disk. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Rich |
Archives