| 1 |
Am 23.12.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@×××××.at> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> got my first two demo nodes up and in-sync ... what a success ;-) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I started to look into ceph, and my biggest issue is that they don't |
| 7 |
> protect against silent corruption. They do checksum data during |
| 8 |
> transit, but not at rest. That means that you could end up with 3 |
| 9 |
> different copies of a file and no way to know which one is the right |
| 10 |
> one. Simply storing the data on btrfs isn't enough - that will |
| 11 |
> protect against files changing on the disk itself, but you could STILL |
| 12 |
> end up with 3 different copies of a file on different nodes and no way |
| 13 |
> to know which one is right, if the error happens at a higher level |
| 14 |
> than the btrfs filesystem/disk. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
but ... oh my. *sigh* |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I assume the devs there have a clever answer to this as well? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At least for the future ... now that btrfs is declared stable at least |
| 21 |
for the more trivial setups (read: not RAID5/6) by Chris Mason himself |
| 22 |
... btrfs should be usable for ceph-OSDs soon. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In the other direction: what protects against these errors you mention? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
S |
Archives