On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> This has been suggested before, and the usual objection is
> precisely that it only protects from errors in the storage layer,
> giving a false sense of security.
If you can come up with a mechanism for detecting non-storage errors
as well, I'm all ears. :)
In the meantime, you're way, way more likely to experience corruption
at the storage layer than anywhere else. We've had several corruption
events, only one of which was memory related... and we *know* it was
memory related because we actually got logs saying so. But with a SAN
environment there's a lot of moving parts, all waiting to screw up
your data:
filesystem
SAN device driver
SAN network
SAN BIOS
drive BIOS
drive
That's above things that could hose your data outside of storage:
kernel
CPU
memory
motherboard
> Doesn't some filesystems include a per-block CRC, which would
> achieve the same thing? ZFS?
Sure, some do. We're on linux and can't run ZFS. And I'll argue that
no linux FS is anywhere near as tested as ext3 is, which means that
going to some other FS that offers you CRC means you're now exposing
yourself to the possibility of issues with the FS itself. Not to
mention that changing filesystems on a large production system is
very painful.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
